Now it's insult America.
The Obama administration has, once again, complained to the United Nations about alleged American human rights violations–and boasted about liberal policies like Obamacare as the solution.
The State Department report, released Monday as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, reads less like an accounting of human rights issues and more like the platform of the Democratic Party–and invites the world to judge America harshly.
The so-called "human rights" problems cited in the report include:
Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
Predatory lending in home mortgages
Suspension of black children in schools
Women earning "78 cents on the dollar" (a false statistic)
In addition, the report boasts of progress in the following areas:
Promoting same-sex marriage
Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school
Executive action on illegal immigration
Helping illegal alien children who cross the border
Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance
Trying to close the Guantánamo Bay prison for terror detainees
Revoking "torture" memos for interrogating terrorists
Passing Obamacare
Expanding food stamps
Regulating "carbon pollution" to fight climate change
The apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council that the administration opposed Arizona's new immigration law, among other alleged American misdeeds.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/11/obama-complains-to-un-about-us-human-rights-violations/
No comment necessary....Membership speaks for itself!
:thumbdown:
Current Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2015
by regional groups
by year
COUNTRY
TERM EXPIRES ON
Albania 2017
Algeria 2016
Argentina 2015
Bangladesh 2017
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 2017
Botswana 2017
Brazil 2015
China 2016
Congo 2017
Côte d'Ivoire 2015
Cuba 2016
El Salvador 2017
Estonia 2015
Ethiopia 2015
France 2016
Gabon 2015
Germany 2015
Ghana 2017
India 2017
Indonesia 2017
Ireland 2015
Japan 2015
Kazakhstan 2015
Kenya 2015
Latvia 2017
Maldives 2016
Mexico 2016
Montenegro 2015
Morocco 2016
Namibia 2016
Netherlands 2017
Nigeria 2017
Pakistan 2015
Paraguay 2017
Portugal 2017
Qatar 2017
Republic of Korea 2015
Russian Federation 2016
Saudi Arabia 2016
Sierra Leone 2015
South Africa 2016
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2016
United Arab Emirates 2015
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2016
United States of America 2015
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2015
Viet Nam 2016
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 07:26:25 AM
Now it's insult America.
The Obama administration has, once again, complained to the United Nations about alleged American human rights violations–and boasted about liberal policies like Obamacare as the solution.
The State Department report, released Monday as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council, reads less like an accounting of human rights issues and more like the platform of the Democratic Party–and invites the world to judge America harshly.
The so-called "human rights" problems cited in the report include:
Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
Predatory lending in home mortgages
Suspension of black children in schools
Women earning "78 cents on the dollar" (a false statistic)
In addition, the report boasts of progress in the following areas:
Promoting same-sex marriage
Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school
Executive action on illegal immigration
Helping illegal alien children who cross the border
Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance
Trying to close the Guantánamo Bay prison for terror detainees
Revoking "torture" memos for interrogating terrorists
Passing Obamacare
Expanding food stamps
Regulating "carbon pollution" to fight climate change
The apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council that the administration opposed Arizona's new immigration law, among other alleged American misdeeds.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/11/obama-complains-to-un-about-us-human-rights-violations/
He wants the UN to do his bidding..... taking care of things he has been unable to do.
To an extent it is an admission of his own failures! The anointed one has been less than "anointed".
Right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the COMINTERN showed their strength every May Day with COmmies on Parade both in COmmunist countries and in all other counties where they promoted INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM. It was so easy then to connect the dots with the nations of the UN and why they voted the way they did. Simply watch the size of their May Day Parade(s) and one would know how they would vote (and why)
Now...they've done gone to hole! :mad:
I don't really understand the point you guys are trying to make here.
Ill be honest I am trying to learn about the tea party and that's why I am here. I wont to learn as much as I can before I side with any type.
It seems to be while some of the issues there are partisan some are pretty basic human rights issues.
But aside from that, I have seen criticisms from the UN on far more expansive topics. One for example, is the use of uranium tipped tank shells in Iraq by US forces. These shells have caused birth defects in Iraq higher then that of Hiroshima. They have also hurt US forces as well.
I also don't understand the point about listing who sits on the council. Of course some of those regimes aren't great, like Saudi Arabia. But does that mean they also cant be correct in pointing out human rights abuses?
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:11:37 PM
I don't really understand the point you guys are trying to make here.
Ill be honest I am trying to learn about the tea party and that's why I am here. I wont to learn as much as I can before I side with any type.
It seems to be while some of the issues there are partisan some are pretty basic human rights issues.
But aside from that, I have seen criticisms from the UN on far more expansive topics. One for example, is the use of uranium tipped tank shells in Iraq by US forces. These shells have caused birth defects in Iraq higher then that of Hiroshima. They have also hurt US forces as well.
I also don't understand the point about listing who sits on the council. Of course some of those regimes aren't great, like Saudi Arabia. But does that mean they also cant be correct in pointing out human rights abuses?
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
That's fine. You don't have to be conservative to post here, and we encourage you to discuss. Just understand, we come from a perspective of pro-Constitution and pro-free market capitalism. When you formulate your posts, just keep that in mind, and don't assume propaganda you may have been indoctrinated with is reality, or that we would agree with you about. We are a fact-based forum, where reality trumps all.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 12:16:06 PM
That's fine. You don't have to be conservative to post here, and we encourage you to discuss. Just understand, we come from a perspective of pro-Constitution and pro-free market capitalism. When you formulate your posts, just keep that in mind, and don't assume propaganda you may have been indoctrinated with is reality, or that we would agree with you about. We are a fact-based forum, where reality trumps all.
I'd like to think that too. But I am not here to push my views I want to learn from you guys about why you think what you think.
So to ask, are there human rights abuses you think America commits around the world? If so, what?
If not, then I assume you think the commission is biased against the US for alleging so?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:19:53 PM
I'd like to think that too. But I am not here to push my views I want to learn from you guys about why you think what you think.
Then I'm glad you're here, and I want you to feel welcome.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:11:37 PM
I don't really understand the point you guys are trying to make here.
Ill be honest I am trying to learn about the tea party and that's why I am here. I wont to learn as much as I can before I side with any type.
It seems to be while some of the issues there are partisan some are pretty basic human rights issues.
But aside from that, I have seen criticisms from the UN on far more expansive topics. One for example, is the use of uranium tipped tank shells in Iraq by US forces. These shells have caused birth defects in Iraq higher then that of Hiroshima. They have also hurt US forces as well.
I also don't understand the point about listing who sits on the council. Of course some of those regimes aren't great, like Saudi Arabia. But does that mean they also cant be correct in pointing out human rights abuses?
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
You have to take anything the UN says about the US, with an overdose of skepticism.
They hate us, there is no other way to put it.
As to TEA, we are, just that Taxed Enough Already. TEA is about returning govt to the people, shrinking the Hell out of it and returning it to the States, where it belongs.
I agree about being skeptical about the UN.
Just curious though. Do you think we commit any abuses or you think its all rubbish?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:24:32 PM
I agree about being skeptical about the UN.
Just curious though. Do you think we commit any abuses or you think its all rubbish?
Like what? Give us some concrete examples to work from.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:24:32 PM
I agree about being skeptical about the UN.
Just curious though. Do you think we commit any abuses or you think its all rubbish?
You do know the literal definition of war, is to blow things up and kill people, right?
Using depleted uranium to destroy armor is a small price to pay in keeping our soldiers alive.
If they don't want us attacking the enemy, they still have the option of killing the radicals for themselves.
The M/E is the breeding ground of the worlds enemy.
Well the uranium was used to destroy Sadaams forces.
The Uranium also harmed US soldiers of course since they were in the same area. Its now having the effect of dementing unborn babies, who of course aren't radicals.
It seems to me that following that logic any army could justify the use of chemical weapons. For example, when Sadaam was using chemical weapons against the Kurds, he was clearly using them to defeat forces while minimizing his own casualties. Putting aside that he was a US ally at the time and that we gave him those weapons, was he justified in using them?
Im not trying to be argumentative just trying to follow the logic.
I guess what I am asking is then do all countries have the right to use uranium tipped shells?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
Well the uranium was used to destroy Sadaams forces.
The Uranium also harmed US soldiers of course since they were in the same area. Its now having the effect of dementing unborn babies, who of course aren't radicals.
It seems to me that following that logic any army could justify the use of chemical weapons. For example, when Sadaam was using chemical weapons against the Kurds, he was clearly using them to defeat forces while minimizing his own casualties. Putting aside that he was a US ally at the time and that we gave him those weapons, was he justified in using them?
Im not trying to be argumentative just trying to follow the logic.
I guess what I am asking is then do all countries have the right to use uranium tipped shells?
You'd first need to provide solid evidence of your claim that our soldiers received any lasting harm.
And how are we in anyway to blame for what others do with their weaponry?
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 12:50:06 PM
You'd first need to provide solid evidence of your claim that our soldiers received any lasting harm.
And how are we in anyway to blame for what others do with their weaponry?
We are not to blame for how other countries use their weaponry.
But if we sold Sadaam chemical weapons before, during and after he used them on Kurdish Civilians we would no doubt share some complicity.
If I gave a terrorist a bomb knowing he would blow up a school, as the scumbags sometimes do, I'd be responsible no?
Would it be ok for other armies to use uranium is my real question? If we can use then everybody can no?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
Well the uranium was used to destroy Sadaams forces.
The Uranium also harmed US soldiers of course since they were in the same area. Its now having the effect of dementing unborn babies, who of course aren't radicals.
It seems to me that following that logic any army could justify the use of chemical weapons. For example, when Sadaam was using chemical weapons against the Kurds, he was clearly using them to defeat forces while minimizing his own casualties. Putting aside that he was a US ally at the time and that we gave him those weapons, was he justified in using them?
Im not trying to be argumentative just trying to follow the logic.
I guess what I am asking is then do all countries have the right to use uranium tipped shells?
Liberals hear something(s) that makes them 'feel' it must be true. Seldom to they either back up their 'reasoning' with facts. For instance, "depleted uranium" is used in some shells for it's hardness and ability to penetrate armor. It's even used in the .50 cal Barrett Sniper Rifle, because it doesn't deform when it penetrates things like block walls, behind which enemy snipers love to lurk. I'm sure you are aware that what is "depleted" in the depleted uranium shell, is the radioactivity. The enemy likely speads a whole lot of propaganda about "uranium bullets" because they have feweer places to hide and sure would like to have them eliminated from our arsenal. Perhaps propaganda such as that you are offering will cause us to give up some of our advantages on the battlefield and provide the enemy with both aid and comfort!
(snip)
" Health problems associated with depleted uranium DU is a potential health hazard if it enters the body, such as through embedded fragments, contaminated wounds, and inhalation or ingestion. Simply riding in a vehicle with DU weapons or DU shielding will not expose a Servicemember to significant amounts of DU or external radiation. The potential for health effects from internal exposure is related to the amount of DU that enters a person's body. If DU enters the body, it may remain in the body. Studies show high doses may especially affect the kidneys. So far no health problems associated with DU exposure have been found in Veterans exposed to DU. Researchers and clinicians continue to monitor the health of these Veterans. Go to the Department of Defense's Depleted Uranium (DU) Library to learn about results of medical and scientific research and other DU topics. - See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/#sthash.Eed3uNPg.dpuf
http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:11:37 PM
I don't really understand the point you guys are trying to make here.
Ill be honest I am trying to learn about the tea party and that's why I am here. I wont to learn as much as I can before I side with any type.
It seems to be while some of the issues there are partisan some are pretty basic human rights issues.
But aside from that, I have seen criticisms from the UN on far more expansive topics. One for example, is the use of uranium tipped tank shells in Iraq by US forces. These shells have caused birth defects in Iraq higher then that of Hiroshima. They have also hurt US forces as well.
I also don't understand the point about listing who sits on the council. Of course some of those regimes aren't great, like Saudi Arabia. But does that mean they also cant be correct in pointing out human rights abuses?
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
If you are referring to obama's list in the first post, first ask why obama did not give examples. His list is mostly a strawman list.
"""Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
Predatory lending in home mortgages
Suspension of black children in schools
Women earning "78 cents on the dollar" (a false statistic)"""
What on this list is an example of anything?? In texas we ask to see id to vote, how does that prove anything?? "black kids suspension", well white kids get suspended too.
In other words, what are you referring to?
If you are asking for what we as conservatives see as a human rights abuse, start with LBJ and his great society.
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 01:04:51 PM
Liberals hear something(s) that makes them 'feel' it must be true. Seldom to they either back up their 'reasoning' with facts. For instance, "depleted uranium" is used in some shells for it's hardness and ability to penetrate armor. It's even used in the .50 cal Barrett Sniper Rifle, because it doesn't deform when it penetrates things like block walls, behind which enemy snipers love to lurk. I'm sure you are aware that what is "depleted" in the depleted uranium shell, is the radioactivity. The enemy likely speads a whole lot of propaganda about "uranium bullets" because they have feweer places to hide and sure would like to have them eliminated from our arsenal. Perhaps propaganda such as that you are offering will cause us to give up some of our advantages on the battlefield and provide the enemy with both aid and comfort!
What you cited is old news. Independent reviews by the Japanese and other organizations have shown that Uranium as lead to birth defects higher then Hiroshima and the US air force is now belatedly categorizing and monitoring troops from the last Iraq war.
A peer-reviewed report set to be released by the WHO, that provided stastical evidence for death rates for US troops and Iraqis was blocked by the US and prevented from release.
--fixed quoting by taxed
SOrry I messed up your post:
I meant to say:
What you cited is old news. Independent reviews by the Japanese and other organizations have shown that Uranium as lead to birth defects higher then Hiroshima and the US air force is now belatedly categorizing and monitoring troops from the last Iraq war.
A peer-reviewed report set to be released by the WHO, that provided stastical evidence for death rates for US troops and Iraqis was blocked by the US and prevented from release.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:10:30 PM
What you cited is old news. IdentHiroshi then ma and the US air force is now belatedly categorizing and monitoring troops from the last Iraq war.ndepen reviews by the Japanese and other organizations have shown that Uranium as lead to birth defects higher
A peer-reviewed report set to be released by the WHO, that provided stastical evidence for death rates for US troops and Iraqis was blocked by the US and prevented from release.
--fixed quoting by taxed
You apparently don't understand how things work on a conservative site....If you state something is a fact, then please provide a link. I did provide a link to a very credible source. Where's yours? Comments like " Independent reviews by the Japanese and other organizations have shown that Uranium as lead to birth defects higher then Hiroshima and the US air force is now belatedly categorizing and monitoring troops from the last Iraq war.
A peer-reviewed report set to be released by the WHO, that provided stastical evidence for death rates for US troops and Iraqis was blocked by the US and prevented from release" sound like they are right out of the old Pravda playbook!
My apologies:
Alberts, B. et al., (2008) Molecular Biology of the Cell 5th Edition, New York, Garland Science .
Arfsten, D.P., (2001) 'A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development'. Toxicology and Industrial Health 17(5-10), June pp. 180-91.
Bakhmutsky, M.V., (2010) 'Long term depleted uranium exposure in Gulf War I veterans does not cause elevated numbers of micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes'. Mutation Research 720(1-2) February pp53-7. Epub 2010 Dec 15.
Barillet, S. et al., (2007) 'Bioaccumulation, oxidative stress, and neurotoxicity in Danio rerio exposed to different isotopic compositions of uranium'. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(1): March pp.497-505.
Barillet, S. et al., (2010) 'Ultrastructural effects on gill, muscle, and gonadal tissues induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) by a waterborne uranium exposure'. Aquatic Toxicology 100(3) November pp. 295-302.
Barillet, S. et al., (2011) 'Uranium bioaccumulation and biological disorders induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) after a depleted uranium waterborne exposure'. Environmental Pollution 159(2), November pp. 495-502.
Coryell, V.H. and Stearns, D.M., (2006) 'Molecular analysis of hprt mutations generated in Chinese hamster ovary EM 9 cells by uranyl acetate, by hydrogen peroxide and spontaneously'. Molecular Carcinogenesis, 45(1) January pp. 60-72.
Darolles, C. et al., (2010) 'Different genotoxic profiles between depleted uranium and enriched uranium'. Toxicology Letters 192, November, pp.337-348.
Giovanetti, A. et al., (2010) 'Bioaccumulation and biological effects in the earthworm Eisenia fetida exposed to natural and depleted uranium'. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 101, April, pp.509-516.
Hahn, F.F. et al., (2002) 'Implanted depleted uranium fragments cause soft tissue sarcomas in the muscles of rats'. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(1), January, pp.51-59.
Heintze, E., (2011) 'Toxicity of depleted uranium complexes is independent of p53 activity'. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 105(2) February pp.142-148.
Hu, QY, Zhu SP., (1990) 'Induction of chromosomal aberrations in male mouse germ cells by uranyl fluoride containing enriched uranium'. Mutation Research 244 (3) July pp. 209-214.
IARC, (2006) Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Scientific Review and Evaluation, [online] available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php
IARC, (2012) Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Radiation Volume 100D: A Review of Human Carcinogens, WHO Press, Geneva, [online] available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100D/mono100D-1.pdf accessed 24 July 2014
Ibrulj, S., (2007) 'Chromosome aberrations as bioindicators of environmental genotoxicity'. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Science 7 (4), November pp.311-316.
Krunić, A., (2005) 'Micronuclei frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals exposed to depleted uranium'. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 56(3), September pp.227-32.
LaCerte, C. et al., (2010) 'Particulate depleted uranium is cytotoxic and clastogenic to human lung epithelial cells'. Mutation Research 697, February pp. 31-37.
Lerebours, A. et al., (2009) 'Comparative analysis of gene expression in brain, liver, skeletal muscles, and gills of zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to environmentally relevant waterborne uranium concentrations'. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28(6), June pp.1271-1278.
Lestaevel, P. et al., (2009) 'Different pattern of brain pro-/anti-oxidant activity between depleted and enriched uranium in chronically exposed rats'. Toxicology 258: April, pp. 1-9.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 29
Lin, R.H. et al., (1993) 'Cytogenetic toxicity of uranyl nitrate in Chinese hamster ovary cells'. Mutation Research 319: November pp. 197-203.
Linares, V. et al., (2006) 'Assessment of the pro-oxidant activity of uranium in kidney and testis of rats'. Toxicology Letters 167: September pp.152-161.
Linares, V. et al., (2007) 'Pro-oxidant effects in the brain of rats concurrently exposed to uranium and stress'. Toxicology 236: July pp.82-92.
Lourenco, J. et al., (2010) 'Genetic, biochemical, and individual responses of the teleost fish Carassius auratus to uranium'. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 58 (4) May pp.1023-1031.
Marnett, L.J., (1999) 'Lipid peroxidation – DNA damage by malondialdehyde'. Mutation Research 424, pp.83-95.
Marnett L.J., (2002). 'Oxy radicals, lipid peroxidation and DNA damage'. Toxicology 181-182, pp. 219-222.
McDiarmid, M.A. et al., (2011) 'Measures of genotoxicity in Gulf war I veterans exposed to depleted uranium'. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 52(7) August pp. 569-81. doi: 10.1002/em.20658. Epub 2011 Jul 4.
Milačić, S., (2004) 'Examination of the health status of populations from depleted uranium contaminated regions'. Environmental Research 75, May pp.2-10.
Milačić, S., (2009) 'Identification of health risks in workers staying and working on the terrains contaminated with depleted uranium'. Journal of Radiation Research 50: May, pp.213-222.
Miller, A. C. et al., (1998) 'Transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by depleted uranium-uranyl chloride'. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(8), August, pp.465-471.
Miller, A.C. et al., (1998) 'Urinary and serum mutagenicity studies with rats implanted with depleted uranium or tantalum pellets'. Mutagenesis vol.13, No. 6, November pp. 643-648.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002) 'DU-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay'. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 91(1): July pp.246-252.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002) 'Observation of radiation-specific damage in human cells exposed to depleted uranium: dicentric frequency and neoplastic transformation as endpoints'. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 99(1-4), pp.275-278.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002), 'Potential late health effects of depleted uranium and tungsten used in armor-piercing munitions: comparison of neoplastic transformation and genotoxicity with the known carcinogen nickel.' Military Medicine 167, Supplement 1: February pp.120-122.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2003) 'Genomic instability in human osteoblast cells after exposure to depleted uranium: delayed lethality and micronuclei formation'. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 64 (2-3), pp.347-59.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2005) 'Leukemic transformation of hematopoietic cells in mice internally exposed to depleted uranium'. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 279, November, pp.97-104.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2007), 'Observation of radiation-specific damage in cells exposed to depleted uranium: hprt gene mutation frequency'. Radiation Measurement, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1029-1032.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2009) 'DNA methylation during depleted uranium-induced leukemia'. Biochimie, 91(10), October, pp. 1328-30.
Miller, A.C., (2010) 'Preconceptional paternal exposure to depleted uranium: transmission of genetic damage to offspring'. Health Physics 99(3), September pp.371-379.
Monleau, M. et al., (2006) 'Distribution and genotoxic effects after successive exposure to different uranium oxide particles inhaled by rats'. Inhalation Toxicology 18, October, pp. 885-894.
Monleau, M. et al., (2006) 'Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of depleted uranium particles inhaled by rats'. Toxicological Sciences 89(1): pp.287-295.
Orona, N.S. and Tasat, D.R., (2012) 'Uranyl nitrate-exposed rat alveolar macrophages cell death: influence of superoxide anion and TNF alpha mediators'. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 261(3), June, pp. 309-316.
Periyakaruppan, A. et al., (2007) 'Uranium induces oxidative stress in lung epithelial cells.' Archives of Toxicology 81(6): June pp.389-395.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 30
Pourahmad, J, et al., (2006) A search for cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in depleted uranium (DU) toxicity. Environmental Toxicology, 21: 349–354. doi: 10.1002/tox.20196,
Schroeder, H., (2003) 'Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War veterans'. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 103(3), pp. 211-219.
Shen, Z., (2011) 'Genomic instability and cancer: an introduction'. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 3(1), pp.1–3.
Song, Y. et al., (2012) 'Early stress responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of uranium'. Aquatic Toxicology 112-113, February pp.62-71.
Stearns, D. M. et al., (2005) 'Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium-DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells'. Mutagenesis 20(6), November pp.417-423.
The Royal Society, (2001) The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: Part I; [online] available at https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/health-uranium-munitions-i/ accessed 28 July 2014
The Royal Society, (2002) The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: Part II [online] available at https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2002/health-uranium-munitions-ii/accessed 28 July 2014
Thiebault, C. et al., (2007) 'Uranium induces apoptosis and Is genotoxic to normal rat kidney (NRK-58E) proximal cells', Toxicological Sciences 98(2), August, pp.479-487.
Todorov, T.I. et al., (2013) 'Uranium quantification in semen by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry'. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 27(1), January pp.2-6.
UK Ministry of Defence, (2013) UK depleted uranium (DU) munitions policy and development [online] available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210641/Depleted_Uranium.pdf accessed 28 July 2014
UN Secretary General, "Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium", Report of the UN Secretary-General, Addendum, p.3, 2010. [UN document, A/65/129/Add.1]
Weir, D., (2012) Precaution in Practice: challenging the acceptability of depleted uranium weapons, ICBUW [online] available at: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/precaution-in-practice
WHO, (2001) Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects Executive summary [online] available at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf?ua=1 accessed 28 July 2014
Wise, S.S., (2007) 'Particulate depleted uranium is cytotoxic and clastogenic to human lung cells'. Chemical Research in Toxicology 20(5): May pp. 815-820.
Xie, H. et al., (2010) 'Depleted uranium induces neoplastic transformation in human lung epithelial cells'. Chemical Research in Toxicology 23, February, pp.373-378.
Yazzie, M. et al., (2003) 'Uranyl acetate causes DNA single strand breaks in vitro in the presence of ascorbate (Vitamin C)', Chemical Research in Toxicology 16, April, pp. 524-530.
Zaire, R., (1997) 'Unexpected rates of chromosomal instabilities and alterations of hormonal levels in Namibian uranium mines'. Radiation Research 147, May pp.579-584.
Zwijnenburg, W., (2014) Laid to Waste: depleted uranium contaminated military scrap in Iraq. PAX, [online] http://www.paxvoorvrede.nl/media/files/pax-rapport-iraq-final-lowres-spread.pdf accessed 28 July 2014.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 31
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:26:47 PM
My apologies:
Alberts, B. et al., (2008) Molecular Biology of the Cell 5th Edition, New York, Garland Science .
Arfsten, D.P., (2001) 'A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development'. Toxicology and Industrial Health 17(5-10), June pp. 180-91.
Bakhmutsky, M.V., (2010) 'Long term depleted uranium exposure in Gulf War I veterans does not cause elevated numbers of micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes'. Mutation Research 720(1-2) February pp53-7. Epub 2010 Dec 15.
Barillet, S. et al., (2007) 'Bioaccumulation, oxidative stress, and neurotoxicity in Danio rerio exposed to different isotopic compositions of uranium'. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(1): March pp.497-505.
Barillet, S. et al., (2010) 'Ultrastructural effects on gill, muscle, and gonadal tissues induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) by a waterborne uranium exposure'. Aquatic Toxicology 100(3) November pp. 295-302.
Barillet, S. et al., (2011) 'Uranium bioaccumulation and biological disorders induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) after a depleted uranium waterborne exposure'. Environmental Pollution 159(2), November pp. 495-502.
Coryell, V.H. and Stearns, D.M., (2006) 'Molecular analysis of hprt mutations generated in Chinese hamster ovary EM 9 cells by uranyl acetate, by hydrogen peroxide and spontaneously'. Molecular Carcinogenesis, 45(1) January pp. 60-72.
Darolles, C. et al., (2010) 'Different genotoxic profiles between depleted uranium and enriched uranium'. Toxicology Letters 192, November, pp.337-348.
Giovanetti, A. et al., (2010) 'Bioaccumulation and biological effects in the earthworm Eisenia fetida exposed to natural and depleted uranium'. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 101, April, pp.509-516.
Hahn, F.F. et al., (2002) 'Implanted depleted uranium fragments cause soft tissue sarcomas in the muscles of rats'. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(1), January, pp.51-59.
Heintze, E., (2011) 'Toxicity of depleted uranium complexes is independent of p53 activity'. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 105(2) February pp.142-148.
Hu, QY, Zhu SP., (1990) 'Induction of chromosomal aberrations in male mouse germ cells by uranyl fluoride containing enriched uranium'. Mutation Research 244 (3) July pp. 209-214.
IARC, (2006) Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Scientific Review and Evaluation, [online] available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php
IARC, (2012) Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Radiation Volume 100D: A Review of Human Carcinogens, WHO Press, Geneva, [online] available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100D/mono100D-1.pdf accessed 24 July 2014
Ibrulj, S., (2007) 'Chromosome aberrations as bioindicators of environmental genotoxicity'. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Science 7 (4), November pp.311-316.
Krunić, A., (2005) 'Micronuclei frequencies in peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals exposed to depleted uranium'. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology 56(3), September pp.227-32.
LaCerte, C. et al., (2010) 'Particulate depleted uranium is cytotoxic and clastogenic to human lung epithelial cells'. Mutation Research 697, February pp. 31-37.
Lerebours, A. et al., (2009) 'Comparative analysis of gene expression in brain, liver, skeletal muscles, and gills of zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to environmentally relevant waterborne uranium concentrations'. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 28(6), June pp.1271-1278.
Lestaevel, P. et al., (2009) 'Different pattern of brain pro-/anti-oxidant activity between depleted and enriched uranium in chronically exposed rats'. Toxicology 258: April, pp. 1-9.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 29
Lin, R.H. et al., (1993) 'Cytogenetic toxicity of uranyl nitrate in Chinese hamster ovary cells'. Mutation Research 319: November pp. 197-203.
Linares, V. et al., (2006) 'Assessment of the pro-oxidant activity of uranium in kidney and testis of rats'. Toxicology Letters 167: September pp.152-161.
Linares, V. et al., (2007) 'Pro-oxidant effects in the brain of rats concurrently exposed to uranium and stress'. Toxicology 236: July pp.82-92.
Lourenco, J. et al., (2010) 'Genetic, biochemical, and individual responses of the teleost fish Carassius auratus to uranium'. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 58 (4) May pp.1023-1031.
Marnett, L.J., (1999) 'Lipid peroxidation – DNA damage by malondialdehyde'. Mutation Research 424, pp.83-95.
Marnett L.J., (2002). 'Oxy radicals, lipid peroxidation and DNA damage'. Toxicology 181-182, pp. 219-222.
McDiarmid, M.A. et al., (2011) 'Measures of genotoxicity in Gulf war I veterans exposed to depleted uranium'. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 52(7) August pp. 569-81. doi: 10.1002/em.20658. Epub 2011 Jul 4.
Milačić, S., (2004) 'Examination of the health status of populations from depleted uranium contaminated regions'. Environmental Research 75, May pp.2-10.
Milačić, S., (2009) 'Identification of health risks in workers staying and working on the terrains contaminated with depleted uranium'. Journal of Radiation Research 50: May, pp.213-222.
Miller, A. C. et al., (1998) 'Transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by depleted uranium-uranyl chloride'. Environmental Health Perspectives 106(8), August, pp.465-471.
Miller, A.C. et al., (1998) 'Urinary and serum mutagenicity studies with rats implanted with depleted uranium or tantalum pellets'. Mutagenesis vol.13, No. 6, November pp. 643-648.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002) 'DU-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay'. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 91(1): July pp.246-252.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002) 'Observation of radiation-specific damage in human cells exposed to depleted uranium: dicentric frequency and neoplastic transformation as endpoints'. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 99(1-4), pp.275-278.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2002), 'Potential late health effects of depleted uranium and tungsten used in armor-piercing munitions: comparison of neoplastic transformation and genotoxicity with the known carcinogen nickel.' Military Medicine 167, Supplement 1: February pp.120-122.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2003) 'Genomic instability in human osteoblast cells after exposure to depleted uranium: delayed lethality and micronuclei formation'. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 64 (2-3), pp.347-59.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2005) 'Leukemic transformation of hematopoietic cells in mice internally exposed to depleted uranium'. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 279, November, pp.97-104.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2007), 'Observation of radiation-specific damage in cells exposed to depleted uranium: hprt gene mutation frequency'. Radiation Measurement, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1029-1032.
Miller, A.C. et al., (2009) 'DNA methylation during depleted uranium-induced leukemia'. Biochimie, 91(10), October, pp. 1328-30.
Miller, A.C., (2010) 'Preconceptional paternal exposure to depleted uranium: transmission of genetic damage to offspring'. Health Physics 99(3), September pp.371-379.
Monleau, M. et al., (2006) 'Distribution and genotoxic effects after successive exposure to different uranium oxide particles inhaled by rats'. Inhalation Toxicology 18, October, pp. 885-894.
Monleau, M. et al., (2006) 'Genotoxic and inflammatory effects of depleted uranium particles inhaled by rats'. Toxicological Sciences 89(1): pp.287-295.
Orona, N.S. and Tasat, D.R., (2012) 'Uranyl nitrate-exposed rat alveolar macrophages cell death: influence of superoxide anion and TNF alpha mediators'. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 261(3), June, pp. 309-316.
Periyakaruppan, A. et al., (2007) 'Uranium induces oxidative stress in lung epithelial cells.' Archives of Toxicology 81(6): June pp.389-395.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 30
Pourahmad, J, et al., (2006) A search for cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in depleted uranium (DU) toxicity. Environmental Toxicology, 21: 349–354. doi: 10.1002/tox.20196,
Schroeder, H., (2003) 'Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War veterans'. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 103(3), pp. 211-219.
Shen, Z., (2011) 'Genomic instability and cancer: an introduction'. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 3(1), pp.1–3.
Song, Y. et al., (2012) 'Early stress responses in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) exposed to environmentally relevant concentrations of uranium'. Aquatic Toxicology 112-113, February pp.62-71.
Stearns, D. M. et al., (2005) 'Uranyl acetate induces hprt mutations and uranium-DNA adducts in Chinese hamster ovary EM9 cells'. Mutagenesis 20(6), November pp.417-423.
The Royal Society, (2001) The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: Part I; [online] available at https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/health-uranium-munitions-i/ accessed 28 July 2014
The Royal Society, (2002) The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: Part II [online] available at https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2002/health-uranium-munitions-ii/accessed 28 July 2014
Thiebault, C. et al., (2007) 'Uranium induces apoptosis and Is genotoxic to normal rat kidney (NRK-58E) proximal cells', Toxicological Sciences 98(2), August, pp.479-487.
Todorov, T.I. et al., (2013) 'Uranium quantification in semen by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry'. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 27(1), January pp.2-6.
UK Ministry of Defence, (2013) UK depleted uranium (DU) munitions policy and development [online] available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210641/Depleted_Uranium.pdf accessed 28 July 2014
UN Secretary General, "Effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium", Report of the UN Secretary-General, Addendum, p.3, 2010. [UN document, A/65/129/Add.1]
Weir, D., (2012) Precaution in Practice: challenging the acceptability of depleted uranium weapons, ICBUW [online] available at: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/precaution-in-practice
WHO, (2001) Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects Executive summary [online] available at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf?ua=1 accessed 28 July 2014
Wise, S.S., (2007) 'Particulate depleted uranium is cytotoxic and clastogenic to human lung cells'. Chemical Research in Toxicology 20(5): May pp. 815-820.
Xie, H. et al., (2010) 'Depleted uranium induces neoplastic transformation in human lung epithelial cells'. Chemical Research in Toxicology 23, February, pp.373-378.
Yazzie, M. et al., (2003) 'Uranyl acetate causes DNA single strand breaks in vitro in the presence of ascorbate (Vitamin C)', Chemical Research in Toxicology 16, April, pp. 524-530.
Zaire, R., (1997) 'Unexpected rates of chromosomal instabilities and alterations of hormonal levels in Namibian uranium mines'. Radiation Research 147, May pp.579-584.
Zwijnenburg, W., (2014) Laid to Waste: depleted uranium contaminated military scrap in Iraq. PAX, [online] http://www.paxvoorvrede.nl/media/files/pax-rapport-iraq-final-lowres-spread.pdf accessed 28 July 2014.ICBUW: Malignant Effects 31
I don't consider any of the propaganda from the UN or the World Health Organization as being eith very credible or reliable. Time and time again, their efforts to engage in Neo-Lysenkoism, to serve their political agenda, makes everything they do very suspect.
The pseudoscience of Global Warming (sic: Climate Change) is a good example of why the credibilty of such "international" organizations is very suspect.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:03:57 PM
We are not to blame for how other countries use their weaponry.
But if we sold Sadaam chemical weapons before, during and after he used them on Kurdish Civilians we would no doubt share some complicity.
You tell me, did we know for a fact that what we sold him was being used and sold him more?
QuoteIf I gave a terrorist a bomb knowing he would blow up a school, as the scumbags sometimes do, I'd be responsible no?
Straw man, try again.
QuoteWould it be ok for other armies to use uranium is my real question? If we can use then everybody can no?
Yes.
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 01:40:40 PM
I don't consider any of the propaganda from the UN or the World Health Organization as being eith very credible or reliable. Time and time again, their efforts to engage in Lysenkoism, to serve their political agenda, makes everything they do very suspect.
The pseudoscience of Global Warming (sic: Climate Change) is a good example of why the credibilty of such "international" organizations is very suspect.
There are 50 peer reviewed articles there and I don't see one from the UN.
Im not sure your point.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:26:47 PM
My apologies:
Alberts, B. et al., (2008) Molecular Biology of the Cell 5th Edition, New York, Garland Science .
Arfsten, D.P., (2001) 'A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development'. Toxicology and Industrial Health 17(5-10), June pp. 180-91.
Bakhmutsky, M.V., (2010) 'Long term depleted uranium exposure in Gulf War I veterans does not cause elevated numbers of micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes'. Mutation Research 720(1-2) February pp53-7. Epub 2010 Dec 15.
Barillet, S. et al., (2007) 'Bioaccumulation, oxidative stress, and neurotoxicity in Danio rerio exposed to different isotopic compositions of uranium'. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(1): March pp.497-505.
Barillet, S. et al., (2010) 'Ultrastructural effects on gill, muscle, and gonadal tissues induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) by a waterborne uranium exposure'. Aquatic Toxicology 100(3) November pp. 295-302.
Barillet, S. et al., (2011) 'Uranium bioaccumulation and biological disorders induced in zebrafish (Danio rerio) after a depleted uranium waterborne exposure'. Environmental Pollution 159(2), November pp.
Just taking the first dozen or so, in no way supports your case re: "Depleted" uranium.
Zebra fish toxicology? Last time I checked, they were nowhere near the theater of war in Iraq.
And again, water born uranium is not depleted in the least.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:42:52 PM
There are 50 peer reviewed articles there and I don't see one from the UN.
Im not sure your point.
from "What we do"
(snip)
"Our primary role is to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations' system"
http://www.who.int/about/en/
This a compilation of 50 Peer reviewed journals the conclusion of which is the more time we have to study uranium the more likely it causes defects and cancer.
To take the first dozen in alphabetical order is a complete misunderstanding of analysis in my view.
But if you feel you are smarter then all of these researchers, etc, that's fine by me. The truth is not really debated anymore.
It was initially in the late 90s. But as time went on and more research became available a consensus has formed. The US and British government continue to block new reports the leaks of which show statically signifant data linking cancer to uranium.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:24:32 PM
I agree about being skeptical about the UN.
Just curious though. Do you think we commit any abuses or you think its all rubbish?
The U.S. is the most benevolent and generous Nation in the world.
Have we ever hurt people along the way? Of course. There is no such thing as immaculate interaction with other Nations.
But in the overall scheme of things, the U.S. has never abused a group of people unjustly.
The nearest thing that comes to mind is Obama's abuse of American citizens that disagree with him.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:50:55 PM
This a compilation of 50 Peer reviewed journals the conclusion of which is the more time we have to study uranium the more likely it causes defects and cancer.
To take the first dozen in alphabetical order is a complete misunderstanding of analysis in my view.
But if you feel you are smarter then all of these researchers, etc, that's fine by me. The truth is not really debated anymore.
It was initially in the late 90s. But as time went on and more research became available a consensus has formed. The US and British government continue to block new reports the leaks of which show statically signifant data linking cancer to uranium.
Asking for you to backup your assertions is standard OP on this forum.
For you to flood us with 50 sources, expecting us to sort through is nothing short of insulting, and a dodge on your part, in assuming we'll magically discover the one article that supports your claims.
If you have something solid and relevant to your claim re: depleted uranium, then post it, but don't waste our time with that nonsense.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:50:55 PM
This a compilation of 50 Peer reviewed journals the conclusion of which is the more time we have to study uranium the more likely it causes defects and cancer.
To take the first dozen in alphabetical order is a complete misunderstanding of analysis in my view.
But if you feel you are smarter then all of these researchers, etc, that's fine by me. The truth is not really debated anymore.
It was initially in the late 90s. But as time went on and more research became available a consensus has formed. The US and British government continue to block new reports the leaks of which show statically signifant data linking cancer to uranium.
Being a researcher doesn't make you smart. I'm sorry to break the news to you.
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 04:40:25 PM
Being a researcher doesn't make you smart. I'm sorry to break the news to you.
Global warming claims/papers have all been pier reviewed as well. :rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 04:45:11 PM
Global warming claims/papers have all been pier reviewed as well. :rolleyes: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You can get a lib to believe anything. Just tell them it's peer reviewed!!!
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 04:45:11 PM
Global warming claims/papers have all been pier reviewed as well. :rolleyes: :lol:
AND he never responded to my psot concerning the mission statement from the WHO (as part of the UN) and they have compiled tghis "research" just as they have the "research" supporting Global Warming. It's pseudoscience and a new form of Lysenkoism. (Rush spoke of Lysenkoism on his show today, as a matter of fact)
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 04:51:43 PM
AND he never responded to my psot concerning the mission statement from the WHO (as part of the UN) and they have compiled tghis "research" just as they have the "research" supporting Global Warming. It's pseudoscience and a new form of Lysenkoism. (Rush spoke of Lysenkoism on his show today, as a matter of fact)
He was trained to just post all those "sources". He's never really went through them.
Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 04:51:43 PM
AND he never responded to my psot concerning the mission statement from the WHO (as part of the UN) and they have compiled tghis "research" just as they have the "research" supporting Global Warming. It's pseudoscience and a new form of Lysenkoism. (Rush spoke of Lysenkoism on his show today, as a matter of fact)
Yeah, WHO routinely ranks the US with the claims of one of the worst health care systems in the world. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 04:54:53 PM
Yeah, WHO routinely ranks the US with the claims of one of the worst health care systems in the world. :rolleyes:
The WHO actually drops your ranking if you have enough households who can AFFORD health care. I need to find that data again....
Yoo Hoo, the sun is cooling.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/31/with-suns-activity-set-to-diminish-is-global-cooling-coming/
Quote from: darroll on May 13, 2015, 05:09:35 PM
Yoo Hoo, the sun is cooling.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/31/with-suns-activity-set-to-diminish-is-global-cooling-coming/
darroll, this need to also be put in the Library if you would please.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:11:37 PM
I also don't understand the point about listing who sits on the council. Of course some of those regimes aren't great, like Saudi Arabia. But does that mean they also cant be correct in pointing out human rights abuses?
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
Abortion for one, state sponsored abortion, killing unborn children who are ALIVE and likely cognizant in the womb.
Oppressive taxation by the GOvt for insidious programs like Obamaocare and for foreign aid to countries who engage in REAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS like some of the list already mentioned for another
Last, enabling human rights violations in other countries like Mexico and Guatemala by promoting unchecked immigration
and lawlessness. Children are encouraged to make a dangerous trek through a hostile terrain and environment controlled by criminal private armies who exploit them as well as adults so that they can take advantage of the Obamao regime's totally lawless immigration policy. Said Policy is a threat and hardship to every man, woman and child in the USA.
Nobody is discussing global warming.
I am very disappointed to find no real sources sent to refute these things but just literally regurigiations of things like calling me a liberal, which I am not, etc.
Anyone can discuss in such a manner.
There have been as I wrote over 50 studies on this topic from all over the world. That is the topic of uranium.
The US air force itself admits that it likely causes increase cancer rates.
To think that anything written here remotely questions these diverse judgments is abusrd.
I was hoping this site was fact based. It is not.
Falsely calling me a liberal is a pathetic attempt at refuting over 50 studies and the conclsuions of the US gob.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
Nobody is discussing global warming.
I am very disappointed to find no real sources sent to refute these things but just literally regurigiations of things like calling me a liberal, which I am not, etc.
Anyone can discuss in such a manner.
There have been as I wrote over 50 studies on this topic from all over the world. That is the topic of uranium.
The US air force itself admits that it likely causes increase cancer rates.
To think that anything written here remotely questions these diverse judgments is abusrd.
I was hoping this site was fact based. It is not.
Falsely calling me a liberal is a pathetic attempt at refuting over 50 studies and the conclsuions of the US gob.
your links were a total failure! You were asked to backup your assertions about "Depleted Uranium" KEYWORD, DEPLETED!!!!
And all you provided was evidence that uranium causes cancer related disease, which is a no brainer!
YES... we all know uranium causes a myriad of diseases, which is why I stated your links were an insult to our intellect.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
Nobody is discussing global warming.
I am very disappointed to find no real sources sent to refute these things but just literally regurigiations of things like calling me a liberal, which I am not, etc.
Anyone can discuss in such a manner.
There have been as I wrote over 50 studies on this topic from all over the world. That is the topic of uranium.
The US air force itself admits that it likely causes increase cancer rates.
To think that anything written here remotely questions these diverse judgments is abusrd.
I was hoping this site was fact based. It is not.
Falsely calling me a liberal is a pathetic attempt at refuting over 50 studies and the conclsuions of the US gob.
Just throwing out your "50 studies" does not give us facts. If you give us hard facts..... maybe you will receive the debate you say you want.
We ARE a fact based group here!
Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 04:50:24 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You can get a lib to believe anything. Just tell them it's peer reviewed!!!
Brian Williams used to do a lot of stories on new research. Look where that got
him.....It cracks me up that college people believe that they can learn facts from people with no actual real-world experience --- the eau de essence of the United Nations, which is supported to the tune of about 25% of total operating costs at U.S. expense and comprises the largest above-ground waste repository in the United States.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 01:50:55 PM
This a compilation of 50 Peer reviewed journals the conclusion of which is the more time we have to study uranium the more likely it causes defects and cancer.
To take the first dozen in alphabetical order is a complete misunderstanding of analysis in my view.
But if you feel you are smarter then all of these researchers, etc, that's fine by me. The truth is not really debated anymore.
It was initially in the late 90s. But as time went on and more research became available a consensus has formed. The US and British government continue to block new reports the leaks of which show statically signifant data linking cancer to uranium.
Pro military industrial complex big government sites, like reason.com, even say you're wrong:
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/26/nuclear-genocide
Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 06:31:34 AM
your links were a total failure! You were asked to backup your assertions about "Depleted Uranium" KEYWORD, DEPLETED!!!!
And all you provided was evidence that uranium causes cancer related disease, which is a no brainer!
YES... we all know uranium causes a myriad of diseases, which is why I stated your links were an insult to our intellect.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.holytaco.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F2009%2F12%2Fa-funny-face-plant32.jpg&hash=edc452e3efe6378b41a8730a7b6fd809e82f54f3)
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 06:21:51 AM
Nobody is discussing global warming.
I am very disappointed to find no real sources sent to refute these things but just literally regurigiations of things like calling me a liberal, which I am not, etc.
Anyone can discuss in such a manner.
There have been as I wrote over 50 studies on this topic from all over the world. That is the topic of uranium.
You brought up depleted uranium originally. Are you changing up on us?
Quote
The US air force itself admits that it likely causes increase cancer rates.
To think that anything written here remotely questions these diverse judgments is abusrd.
I was hoping this site was fact based. It is not.
Falsely calling me a liberal is a pathetic attempt at refuting over 50 studies and the conclsuions of the US gob.
The point is, it is like global warming. Academia cranks out peer-review paper after peer-review paper telling us we're going to be underwater and the ice caps are melting away, yet we know it's crap. How do we know it's crap? Because we're not underwater, and the ice caps are just fine. Same thing with your attempt to provide proof. You can post links to data of all day long, but I need to see evidence that soldiers are in danger of negative affects of depleted uranium.
If any of us thought there was any danger to soldiers, we would be very much against it. We're not liberals; we support our militiary. All you have to do is provide some real evidence that soldiers are harmed by depleted uranium. With all the intellect of academia behind you, this should be pretty easy.
Quote from: taxed on May 14, 2015, 08:48:50 AM
You brought up depleted uranium originally. Are you changing up on us?
The point is, it is like global warming. Academia cranks out peer-review paper after peer-review paper telling us we're going to be underwater and the ice caps are melting away, yet we know it's crap. How do we know it's crap? Because we're not underwater, and the ice caps are just fine. Same thing with your attempt to provide proof. You can post links to data of all day long, but I need to see evidence that soldiers are in danger of negative affects of depleted uranium.
If any of us thought there was any danger to soldiers, we would be very much against it. We're not liberals; we support our militiary. All you have to do is provide some real evidence that soldiers are harmed by depleted uranium. With all the intellect of academia behind you, this should be pretty easy.
Its quite clear I meant depleted uranium. Evasive comments are pointless.
I am not getting into the climate science thing.
What I will say is I provided you 50 sources of such. There are also sources I didn't include from the WHO, Gulf war vet committees, the US air force, etc.
Are you saying that all peer reviewed articles or journal studies are bogus?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 09:39:27 AM
Its quite clear I meant depleted uranium. Evasive comments are pointless.
I am not getting into the climate science thing.
What I will say is I provided you 50 sources of such. There are also sources I didn't include from the WHO, Gulf war vet committees, the US air force, etc.
Are you saying that all peer reviewed articles or journal studies are bogus?
NO! We're saying, puking up a bunch of links as a way of obfuscating doesn't fly!
Try one, and we'll debate it.
Quote from: taxed on May 14, 2015, 08:36:18 AM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.holytaco.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F2009%2F12%2Fa-funny-face-plant32.jpg&hash=edc452e3efe6378b41a8730a7b6fd809e82f54f3)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Eatin dirt on that one.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 09:39:27 AM
Its quite clear I meant depleted uranium. Evasive comments are pointless.
I am not getting into the climate science thing.
What I will say is I provided you 50 sources of such. There are also sources I didn't include from the WHO, Gulf war vet committees, the US air force, etc.
Are you saying that all peer reviewed articles or journal studies are bogus?
What exactly are you discussing/debating? You started out making outrageous statements concerning "Human rights" violations by the US then when board members fired back you asked the question like "what human rights violations does the US commit" when I gave you an answer you didnt respond and now you are jumping around with this "depleted Uranium" BS.....
Pick a topic, stay with it, provide proof and answer back when people respond to your queries instead of using the "shotgun effect" spraying missles around in hopes you can hit a target.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 14, 2015, 10:39:55 AM
What exactly are you discussing/debating? You started out making outrageous statements concerning "Human rights" violations by the US then when board members fired back you asked the question like "what human rights violations does the US commit" when I gave you an answer you didnt respond and now you are jumping around with this "depleted Uranium" BS.....
Pick a topic, stay with it, provide proof and answer back when people respond to your queries instead of using the "shotgun effect" spraying missles around in hopes you can hit a target.
I think this is what you call a SHILL.
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 07:26:25 AM
Now it's insult America.
The Obama administration has, once again, complained to the United Nations about alleged American human rights violations–and boasted about liberal policies like Obamacare as the solution.
The so-called "human rights" problems cited in the report include:
(1)
Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
Predatory lending in home mortgages
Suspension of black children in schools
(2)
Women earning "78 cents on the dollar" (a false statistic)
In addition, the report boasts of progress in the following areas:
Promoting same-sex marriage
Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school
(3)
Executive action on illegal immigration
Helping illegal alien children who cross the border
Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance
Trying to close the Guantánamo Bay prison for terror detainees
Revoking "torture" memos for interrogating terrorists
(4)
Passing Obamacare
Expanding food stamps
Regulating "carbon pollution" to fight climate change
The apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council that the administration opposed Arizona's new immigration law, among other alleged American misdeeds.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/11/obama-complains-to-un-about-us-human-rights-violations/
Whoever came up with the term, "Marxist Apology Tour" did well. :cool: Also, I am glad to see that handy list of members of the UN Human Rights Commission.
So, here we have detailed examples of four of the primary Divide and Conquer prescriptions from the Cloward Piven subversive communists. I have taken the liberty to separate the examples of the original post and number them, one through four.
1)
Black and White, a shared subset of
Rich and Poor, which is the communist staple, an Obama specialty.
2)
Male and Female, flagrantly divisive with multiple intentions, not the least of which is to divide the American family, create a confusing basket of competing political and economic alliances,
cause birth rates to fall, and weaken the moral fiber of America's backbone population.
3)
International Ethnic and Religious animosities. Deserting The State of Israel and the use of Hispanic and Islamic immigration are two examples at the tip of the iceberg.
4)
Government and the Private Sector. The end game category, since the goal is a fundamental transformation of democratic republics into Soviet client states.
Those are four "divide and conquer" categories singled out on this Marxist Apologetic.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 14, 2015, 10:39:55 AM
What exactly are you discussing/debating? You started out making outrageous statements concerning "Human rights" violations by the US then when board members fired back you asked the question like "what human rights violations does the US commit" when I gave you an answer you didnt respond and now you are jumping around with this "depleted Uranium" BS.....
Pick a topic, stay with it, provide proof and answer back when people respond to your queries instead of using the "shotgun effect" spraying missles around in hopes you can hit a target.
I made no such statements.
I cited 50 articles, the US air force, and veterans of war, among others, as evidence that depleted uranium causes cancer and reproductive health issues.
I am still awaiting a response from some on those issues.
SO far I got a pitcher of a baseball player sliding into base and requests for evidence.
Here is more:
"When DU explodes, it produces a very fine uranium dust. When children play near wrecked tanks, they can absorb this dust through their skin, their mouths and their airways. A 2002 study at the University of Bremen in northern Germany found that chromosomal changes had occurred in Gulf war veterans who had come into contact with uranium ammunition."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/researchers-studying-high-rates-of-cancer-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-a-873225.html
SInce you refuse to read the new 50 soruced compilation study Ill go back further.
Now go ahead and be quick to defend what could have been harm to US troops for some reason I don't know.
Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I made no such statements.
I cited 50 articles, the US air force, and veterans of war, among others, as evidence that depleted uranium causes cancer and reproductive health issues.
I am still awaiting a response from some on those issues.
SO far I got a pitcher of a baseball player sliding into base and requests for evidence.
Here is more:
"When DU explodes, it produces a very fine uranium dust. When children play near wrecked tanks, they can absorb this dust through their skin, their mouths and their airways. A 2002 study at the University of Bremen in northern Germany found that chromosomal changes had occurred in Gulf war veterans who had come into contact with uranium ammunition."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/researchers-studying-high-rates-of-cancer-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-a-873225.html
SInce you refuse to read the new 50 soruced compilation study Ill go back further.
Now go ahead and be quick to defend what could have been harm to US troops for some reason I don't know.
Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here?
I'm still waiting for evidence that DU is harmful to our soldiers. Do you need more time to search?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I made no such statements.
I cited 50 articles, the US air force, and veterans of war, among others, as evidence that depleted uranium causes cancer and reproductive health issues.
I am still awaiting a response from some on those issues.
SO far I got a pitcher of a baseball player sliding into base and requests for evidence.
Here is more:
"When DU explodes, it produces a very fine uranium dust. When children play near wrecked tanks, they can absorb this dust through their skin, their mouths and their airways. A 2002 study at the University of Bremen in northern Germany found that chromosomal changes had occurred in Gulf war veterans who had come into contact with uranium ammunition."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/researchers-studying-high-rates-of-cancer-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-a-873225.html
SInce you refuse to read the new 50 soruced compilation study Ill go back further.
Now go ahead and be quick to defend what could have been harm to US troops for some reason I don't know.
Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here?
I see you discovered what we already knew, that there has not been a link made between DU and cancer.
You see, you fell for leftist talking points as your article illustrates.
Quote"Mystery in Iraq: Are US Munitions to Blame for Basra Birth Defects?"
But as we all know, the left believes the evidence to be irrelevant to the far more serious "Claims" they make as in "The evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters" think Anita Hill.
So, you see what happened here? This is why we are a fact based forum.
Even when it makes the right look bad, exposing the truth is by far more important in the long term than trying to obfuscate the way the rino and progressives do.
Is there a possibility that DU causes cancer? You bet, but until they prove the claim, it's nothing more than a leftist weapon to be used against a superior military power, US.
Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 02:15:13 PM
I see you discovered what we already knew, that there has not been a link made between DU and cancer.
You see, you fell for leftist talking points as your article illustrates.
But as we all know, the left believes the evidence to be irrelevant to the far more serious "Claims" they make as in "The evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters" think Anita Hill.
So, you see what happened here? This is why we are a fact based forum.
Even when it makes the right look bad, exposing the truth is by far more important in the long term than trying to obfuscate the way the rino and progressives do.
Is there a possibility that DU causes cancer? You bet, but until they prove the claim, it's nothing more than a leftist weapon to be used against a superior military power, US.
Is he saying we are bad on human rights because we don't err on the side of DU causing cancer in our troops? I'm confused.
Quote from: taxed on May 14, 2015, 02:22:41 PM
Is he saying we are bad on human rights because we don't err on the side of DU causing cancer in our troops? I'm confused.
Nah, he's just reaching, or like Billy referred to as firing a shotgun and hoping to hit something, anything.
Oh, this thread's about depleted uranium? Human-skin blocks its alpha-particles, standard military battle-dress and boots block its beta-particles. That only leaves its gamma rays, which we're already bombarded with every second of our lives.
Where's the problem?
DU shells and armor are sheathed in steel. DU isn't exposed, for gosh sakes. I think you have to remain in skin-contact with raw DU for 250 straight hours to reach the 50 Roentgen Equivalent in Man (rem) stage. -And that's only centralized to area of the body its touching.
I thought Dems believed in science.
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 14, 2015, 03:39:12 PM
Oh, this thread's about depleted uranium? Human-skin blocks its alpha-particles, standard military battle-dress and boots block its beta-particles. That only leaves its gamma rays, which we're already bombarded with every second of our lives.
Where's the problem?
DU shells and armor are sheathed in steel. DU isn't exposed, for gosh sakes. I think you have to remain in skin-contact with raw DU for 250 straight hours to reach the 50 Roentgen Equivalent in Man (rem) stage. -And that's only centralized to area of the body its touching.
I thought Dems believed in science.
Apparently, if you mainline it, it could make you ill, which is proof the US is bad on human rights.
Quote from: taxed on May 14, 2015, 03:45:39 PM
Apparently, if you mainline it, it could make you ill, which is proof the US is bad on human rights.
Yeah, about as deadly as lead poisoning which leads to death. But then, isn't that the purpose of lead bullets, to kill? :biggrin:
Damn, we're horrible on human rights! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
Yeah, about as deadly as lead poisoning which leads to death. But then, isn't that the purpose of lead bullets, to kill? :biggrin:
Damn, we're horrible on human rights! :rolleyes:
What's next? We're pro-slavery because AGW is a scam?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I made no such statements.
I guess what I am asking, is what human rights abuses, if any, do you think America commits?
If you would put down that bong your sucking on maybe you would remember.
Quote from: Solar on May 14, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
Yeah, about as deadly as lead poisoning which leads to death. But then, isn't that the purpose of lead bullets, to kill? :biggrin:
Damn, we're horrible on human rights! :rolleyes:
We are being criticized for our cruel and unusual punishment people sentenced to death. We are having a problem with lethal injections and the gas chamber and "sparky" are not good. We have a solution. Thank you Kim. We can use anti-aircraft guns. It is quick and painless. :lol:
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 14, 2015, 07:02:46 PM
We are being criticized for our cruel and unusual punishment people sentenced to death. We are having a problem with lethal injections and the gas chamber and "sparky" are not good. We have a solution. Thank you Kim. We can use anti-aircraft guns. It is quick and painless. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Excellent point, costly, but effective.
Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.
Gods, I hate the left.
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 14, 2015, 08:16:55 PM
Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.
Gods, I hate the left.
Look at it this way, taxed was out of a chew toy.
Quote from: walkstall on May 14, 2015, 09:26:07 PM
Look at it this way, taxed was out of a chew toy.
No wonder he's always gassy...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 14, 2015, 10:52:13 PM
No wonder he's always gassy...
My understanding that is not for chew toys. :lol:
Quote from: kit saginaw on May 14, 2015, 08:16:55 PM
Let's see... we like hurting people so let's use the densest armor (U-238 depleted 98%... not U-235 which is 6-times more radioactive than U-238) so we can protect people.
Gods, I hate the left.
It's the same reasoning behind the libs disdain of nuclear energy, and why they would rather murder half a billion birds every year with giant wind driven Cuisinarts, why murdering the unborn is considered women' right that trumps that of the father, why giving special rights to a fringe group of 2% society deems destructive to the institution with an effect of destroying millenia' of proven a structure based on Gods law.
Because they have yet to grasp the concept of critical thinking. They see everything through the prism of emotion and bypass ever having to ask the question "Why, or How" How does this effect society, why would anyone want to change society so drastically?
Sad isn't it?
You guys are an absolute joke.
Go actually read what you all have written and it is little more to a preaching to each others quires.
I am not on the left. Yet this is the number one criticism you have in response to mounting evidence that depleted uranium not only causes cancer, but also certainly causes birth defects. It has already been studied that there are higher rates ten fold in birth defects by troops who have returned home and had children. I posted 50 articles to this end, additional newspaper articles, the US air force, the fact that a report was leaked that showed 98 percent statistical evidence that DU increased the risk of cancer in soldiers, civilians and caused major damage to reproductive rights.
Iraqi children have seen rates of cancer go up by over 50 times. Google the pictures.
Feel free to be skeptical. But in this case that's about on par with being skeptical that cigs cause cancer.
DU has been condmeed by virtually the entire world as chemical weapon and banned mode of war.
It seems that the mere mention that US can commit a human rights abuse is somehow a thought that provokes complete anger here.
One can only conclude that the US is incapable, in the eyes of people here, of committing a human rights abuse. If that is the case, that is a deeply totalitarian viewpoint and one held by Soviet commissars.
You know what a Soviet commissar would say when Russian dissidents accused them of human rights abuses in eastern Europe? He would call them Anti-Soviet.
The viewpoint here mirrors that of dictators mindset.
I came on the site about as respectfully as a person can. Specifically mentioned I want to learn. SO far I have learned that the argument tactics here are merely to refute an argument by calling someone a leftist, whether or not they are one.
That's pathetic and embarrassing.
I say to Solar, we gave Sadaam Hussein chemical and biological weapons before, during and after he was using them to gas Kurdish children.
His response? "How are we responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to them?"
A purely ignorant response. For starters, you don't block the united nations from imposing sanctions for the crimes, as we did. But more then that, you don't continue to supply a brutal tyrant with weapons when you know that he is using them to gas people in stark violation of international law.
Under that theory, someone who sells a terrorist a bomb to say bomb Washington, is innocent, because they are not responsible for what the terrorist does with the bomb, Yeah, Solar you are worth taking seriously. Ha, not.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:00:09 AM
You guys are an absolute joke.
Go actually read what you all have written and it is little more to a preaching to each others quires.
I am not on the left. Yet this is the number one criticism you have in response to mounting evidence that depleted uranium not only causes cancer, but also certainly causes birth defects. It has already been studied that there are higher rates ten fold in birth defects by troops who have returned home and had children. I posted 50 articles to this end, additional newspaper articles, the US air force, the fact that a report was leaked that showed 98 percent statistical evidence that DU increased the risk of cancer in soldiers, civilians and caused major damage to reproductive rights.
Settle down. It's not our fault you have failed to prove your point beyond "It Is Claimed" by our enemies, that that don't have the ability to stop our weaponry, that is must cause cancer.
Like I said before, it very well may cause cancer but it has yet to be proven.
QuoteIraqi children have seen rates of cancer go up by over 50 times. Google the pictures.
Feel free to be skeptical. But in this case that's about on par with being skeptical that cigs cause cancer.
DU has been condmeed by virtually the entire world as chemical weapon and banned mode of war.
Saddam buried chem weapons all throughout Iraq, yet somehow it was DU causation to your claim?
You do realize just how emotional of a response that was, right?
QuoteIt seems that the mere mention that US can commit a human rights abuse is somehow a thought that provokes complete anger here.
Have you ever stopped to think about the fact this is war?
In war, you kill the enemy where you can, when the enemy hides among the innocent, you have collateral damage and innocent die. But no, this war was fought along PC rules of engagement, in turn costing the lives of American soldiers instead.
Let me be blunt. Fuck That Shit! It's war, level the God damned place and make an example of our enemies. DU? Too damn bad, it's a side effect of war, a war they should be grateful a family of PC Presidents fought, where preserving every Mosque for fear of offending, over the life of our own.
Get over yourself!
QuoteOne can only conclude that the US is incapable, in the eyes of people here, of committing a human rights abuse. If that is the case, that is a deeply totalitarian viewpoint and one held by Soviet commissars.
You know what a Soviet commissar would say when Russian dissidents accused them of human rights abuses in eastern Europe? He would call them Anti-Soviet.
The viewpoint here mirrors that of dictators mindset.
Slaughtering Jews in WWII was a human rights violation, using a compound suspected of causing cancer does not rise to the level of abuse.
Your emotional appeals fall on deaf ears, which is why you come off sounding like a lib.
QuoteI came on the site about as respectfully as a person can. Specifically mentioned I want to learn. SO far I have learned that the argument tactics here are merely to refute an argument by calling someone a leftist, whether or not they are one.
That's pathetic and embarrassing.
Instead of using critical though, you come off as an emotional school girl chastising adults for not seeing it through your innocent eyes.
QuoteI say to Solar, we gave Sadaam Hussein chemical and biological weapons before, during and after he was using them to gas Kurdish children.
Not remembering the timeline, but if what you say is correct, then yeah, Bush should have been held responsible. To this day I don't forgive him for lying to the Kurds, where he told them to fight, we had their back, only to abandon them in their time of need.
You won't find an Bush apologist in me, but when we go to war, it should be fought as the war to end all wars.
It was not, and for this I hold them responsible. Now do you get where I come from, what ground I stand upon?
QuoteHis response? "How are we responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to them?"
A purely ignorant response. For starters, you don't block the united nations from imposing sanctions for the crimes, as we did. But more then that, you don't continue to supply a brutal tyrant with weapons when you know that he is using them to gas people in stark violation of international law.
Under that theory, someone who sells a terrorist a bomb to say bomb Washington, is innocent, because they are not responsible for what the terrorist does with the bomb, Yeah, Solar you are worth taking seriously. Ha, not.
He's dead. Your point?
You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly. Its your business whether to avoid it. Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.
The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
The chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush. That was under Reagan. Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc. It also had nothing to do with just republicans. It was bi-partisan support.
Nobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves. But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children. There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with. There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops. The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).
I
You are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra. I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.
Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me. You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.
Nice to see you at least retreated from your claims that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him. But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.
For example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:42:58 AM
You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly. Its your business whether to avoid it. Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.
The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
The chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush. That was under Reagan. Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc. It also had nothing to do with just republicans. It was bi-partisan support.
Nobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves. But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children. There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with. There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops. The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).
I
You are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra. I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.
Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me. You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.
Nice to see you at least retreated from your claims that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him. But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.
For example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?
East Timor??? A diver's mecca...... if you speak Portuguese...... :thumbup:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 07:42:58 AM
You wrote absolutely nothing there worth really responding too.
I dont have to prove the cancer/birth defect link because intelligent scholars have already proved it overwhelmingly. Its your business whether to avoid it. Its also your business to ignore the US air force as well who has reported the same thing.
Then you shouldn't have any problem posting a single link proving your claim, Right?
So post it, lets see this incontrovertible proof.
Seriously, one single link, not your 50 nonsense BS, but one. Can you do that?
The chemical weapons in Iraq buried overwhelmingly came from the US, FYI, so even if you think that's the cause, which it clearly is making soldiers sick as well, then that would still make us culpable.
We didn't sell him chemical weapons, we, along with the rest of the world supplied him with chemicals.
Get you facts straight!
QuoteThe chemical attacks supported by the US in Iraq had nothing to do with Bush. That was under Reagan. Bush did support Sadaam as well afterwords but the weight of the blood falls on Reagan, Rumsefeld etc. It also had nothing to do with just republicans. It was bi-partisan support.
All started by the idiot Carter. But you didn't know that, because you only know what your profs want you to know.
Point is, at that time, Iran was taken over by radicals and Saddam was the least radical of all the animals in the M/E, so he became an ally. Both Iran and Iraq were slaughtering Kurds, it wasn't just one sided.
QuoteNobody is saying to fight a war with kid gloves. But there is a big difference between killing/maiming unborn children. There is a big difference between giving Iraq chemical weapons to be used on Kurds of whom we are not at war with. There is also a big difference between pummeling civilian areas rather then fighting Iraqi troops. The civilians in Iraq are the victims if Sadaam(just as they were a victim when we were supporting him for a decade).
Just something for you to ponder. Had we gone in, takeover Iraq, forced them to accept Christianity at the point of a gun. What do you think Iraq would be like today?
Keep in mind, this culture only respects power at the end of a sword.
QuoteYou are again basically repeating a terrorist mantra. I am assuming you would be consistent with your logic and thus you would accept a more terrorism on US shores since you would also great them the right to fight war as severely as they want.
Your ineptitude on knowledge of foreign policy is funny to me. You are clearly out of your element here and I am thinking that when I begin to read your domestic criticisms you will prove to be out of your element as well.
Son, I remember more first hand than you've been programmed by your profs in school.
QuoteNice to see you at least retreated from your claims that we are not responsible for what people do with weapons after we give them to him. But most importantly, you are out of your element in foreign policy as you clearly just don't know much.
I retreated on nothing, it was you making assumptions in creating false conclusions.
QuoteFor example, explain to me US policy in East Timor?
So was that last weeks Geopolitical lesson?
I should care more about a country smaller than the state of Main, over the outcome of Venezeula' experiment with communism, or open relations with Cuba, why?
Son, what you know about the world is based on opinions of others forming a conclusion destined by those with an agenda.
I, on the other hand have lived what you see as history. This is not a road you want to venture down.
On the East Timor point, I will take that as you don't know what happened there.
For your edification, a US supported Indonesian invasion of East Timor killed 200,000 out of the 900,000 people who lived there in atrocities described as genocide. Women's babies were ripped out of their stomach, men were sterilized, etc. It went on for over 20 years through various administrations. It ended in 1999. You know nothing about it.
Carter was a terrible President, something I think we agree on. However, Carter had absolutely nothing to do with beginning relations with Sadaam. He may have if he stayed in power, but we simply don't know. The relations with Sadaam began in 1982 and picked up speed in 1984 when Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet with the dictator. The US then proceeded to begin to arm Iraq, take them of the US list of sates sponsoring terrorism etc. Iran never used chemical weapons during either the Iran-Iraq war, or their brutal treatment of the Kurds. Iraq on the other hand did use weapons against both the Kurds and Iranians. The Iranians repeatedly brought this issue to the UN to sanction Iraq for obvious violations of International law, and the US repeatedly vetoed the resolutions.
You brought the brutal treatment of Iranians against the Kurds? A 5 year old could detect this is irrelevant. Is it your premise that US crimes against Kurds by supporting chemical attacks against them is obviated because also treated them poorly? If you get picked up for murder would you defend yourself on the grounds that other people to have committed murder?
By the way, Iran did have a democratic government in 1953. It was overthrown by a British-US CIA coup that installed the Shah who for 25 years killed tens of thousands of Iranian political prisoners with the most brutal types of torture you can imagine. Had the US not overthrown Iranian democracy, there would be no Islamic state right now.
You asked what would happen if the US forced Iraq to covernt to Christianity. Why you asked this I have absolutely no clue. I presume what would happen is the same that happened to Native Americans, which is they were extinct from the planet.
You made a statement that Iraq only understands force. This is completely inconsistent with scholarship, CIA assessments, etc. All of the aforementioned conclude and in fact predicted that the 2003 invasion of Iraq would create exactly what it did in Iraq.
Abstract
Iraq is suffering from depleted uranium (DU) pollution in many regions and the effects of this may harm public health through poisoning and increased incidence of various cancers and birth defects. DU is a known carcinogenic agent. About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer , Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13623699.2013.765173#.VVYTfsvjhoI
Depleted uranium and cancer in Danish Balkan veterans deployed 1992–2001
HH Storm, HO Jørgensen, AMT Kejs... - ... Journal of Cancer, 2006 - Elsevier
... 8 cases], France [5 cases], The Netherlands [2 cases], Denmark [2 cases] were linked to the use
of depleted uranium (DU) enforced ... This is a 30% increase in risk. ... by DU was used, as well as
being in agreement with studies of workers with decades of exposure to uranium. ...
Cited by 38 Related articles All 6 versions Cite SaveSaved
http://truthalerts.com/iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/
That's now56 citations. Most recent research which I didn't even read yet, said that cancner rate in Iraq has gone up 4000% with 14..7 out of every 100 children born with birth defects. Especailly in Fallujah where heavy use of white phorpohours and DU were found.
Is it possible that DU isn't the cause? Absolutely. But the research seems pretty heavy that it plays a role. Perhaps we shouldn't use till we know huh?
I don't care how old you are. Someone who has seen as much as you should not be alleging I get my views from Proffessors without a shred of evidence. I get my views from my own research. Such childish debate tactics are right in line with you calling me a leftist, a lib or whatever slander is your choice for the moment.
Such evasive debate tactits are merely confirmation of your inability to discuss the issues. As I said you are out of your league here.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 08:54:54 AM
On the East Timor point, I will take that as you don't know what happened there.
For your edification, a US supported Indonesian invasion of East Timor killed 200,000 out of the 900,000 people who lived there in atrocities described as genocide. Women's babies were ripped out of their stomach, men were sterilized, etc. It went on for over 20 years through various administrations. It ended in 1999. You know nothing about it.
Yet you do I suppose.....
I served in East Timor in 1998 and 1999 training their security forces as a private contractor.....most of the atrocities there we committed by Muslim imported from Indonesia and targeted Christians.
Now go ahead and make a fool out of yourself some more
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 09:19:07 AM
Yet you do I suppose.....
I served in East Timor in 1998 and 1999 training their security forces as a private contractor.....most of the atrocities there we committed by Muslim imported from Indonesia and targeted Christians.
Now go ahead and make a fool out of yourself some more
Yes, that's exactly what I said. The "US-Supported invasion Of Indonesia." Indonesia is a Muslim country. I appreciate you making my point for me.
However, by 1998 most of the worst atrocities were already completed.
This is not really a deniable issue as US government leaders have apologized to certain quarters for this.
All of the weaponry for Indonesia came from the west and virtually all from the US. The US supported with weapons and training throughout. Gerald Ford gave his blessing to the invasion for Suharto in 1976, a meeting you can now read the de-classified document for.
So not sure what you are disagreeing about here.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 08:54:54 AM
On the East Timor point, I will take that as you don't know what happened there.
For your edification, a US supported Indonesian invasion of East Timor killed 200,000 out of the 900,000 people who lived there in atrocities described as genocide. Women's babies were ripped out of their stomach, men were sterilized, etc. It went on for over 20 years through various administrations. It ended in 1999. You know nothing about it.
Which has what to do with Venezuela or Cuba? See, two can play your stupid game of gotcha.
QuoteCarter was a terrible President, something I think we agree on. However, Carter had absolutely nothing to do with beginning relations with Sadaam. He may have if he stayed in power, but we simply don't know. The relations with Sadaam began in 1982 and picked up speed in 1984 when Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet with the dictator. The US then proceeded to begin to arm Iraq, take them of the US list of sates sponsoring terrorism etc. Iran never used chemical weapons during either the Iran-Iraq war, or their brutal treatment of the Kurds. Iraq on the other hand did use weapons against both the Kurds and Iranians. The Iranians repeatedly brought this issue to the UN to sanction Iraq for obvious violations of International law, and the US repeatedly vetoed the resolutions.
Carter had everything to do with what is currently happening in the M/E, just as the Marxist is exacerbating the current problems.
QuoteYou brought the brutal treatment of Iranians against the Kurds? A 5 year old could detect this is irrelevant. Is it your premise that US crimes against Kurds by supporting chemical attacks against them is obviated because also treated them poorly? If you get picked up for murder would you defend yourself on the grounds that other people to have committed murder?
At least try and make sense when you post, and learn to use the quote function if you expect me to follow your derailed train of thought.
QuoteBy the way, Iran did have a democratic government in 1953. It was overthrown by a British-US CIA coup that installed the Shah who for 25 years killed tens of thousands of Iranian political prisoners with the most brutal types of torture you can imagine. Had the US not overthrown Iranian democracy, there would be no Islamic state right now.
Again, thank Carter.
QuoteYou asked what would happen if the US forced Iraq to covernt to Christianity. Why you asked this I have absolutely no clue. I presume what would happen is the same that happened to Native Americans, which is they were extinct from the planet.
You made a statement that Iraq only understands force. This is completely inconsistent with scholarship, CIA assessments, etc. All of the aforementioned conclude and in fact predicted that the 2003 invasion of Iraq would create exactly what it did in Iraq.
It also exposes your ignorance of culture in the M/E. These people are living in the 7th century and follow the teachings of war and conquer.
QuoteAbstract
Iraq is suffering from depleted uranium (DU) pollution in many regions and the effects of this may harm public health through poisoning and increased incidence of various cancers and birth defects. DU is a known carcinogenic agent. About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer , Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13623699.2013.765173#.VVYTfsvjhoI
Depleted uranium and cancer in Danish Balkan veterans deployed 1992–2001
HH Storm, HO Jørgensen, AMT Kejs... - ... Journal of Cancer, 2006 - Elsevier
... 8 cases], France [5 cases], The Netherlands [2 cases], Denmark [2 cases] were linked to the use
of depleted uranium (DU) enforced ... This is a 30% increase in risk. ... by DU was used, as well as
being in agreement with studies of workers with decades of exposure to uranium. ...
Cited by 38 Related articles All 6 versions Cite SaveSaved
http://truthalerts.com/iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/
Fail!!!! Correlation is not causation.
I would have torn apart their BS claims, but I got this response when I tried to read it.
QuoteSorry, you do not have access to this article.
How to gain access:
Recommend to your librarian that your institution purchase access to this publication.
I today's world, one does not have to pay for facts if they are true and not agenda driven.
QuoteThat's now56 citations. Most recent research which I didn't even read yet, said that cancner rate in Iraq has gone up 4000% with 14..7 out of every 100 children born with birth defects. Especailly in Fallujah where heavy use of white phorpohours and DU were found.
Your citations have yet to prove correlation.
As I stated earlier, DU may be a possible link, but one that has yet to be proven.
All you've done ie prove my point, that they only suspect it as being part of an issue.
QuoteIs it possible that DU isn't the cause? Absolutely. But the research seems pretty heavy that it plays a role. Perhaps we shouldn't use till we know huh?
Uhhh, hello! That's been my point all along.
QuoteI don't care how old you are. Someone who has seen as much as you should not be alleging I get my views from Proffessors without a shred of evidence. I get my views from my own research. Such childish debate tactics are right in line with you calling me a leftist, a lib or whatever slander is your choice for the moment.
Such evasive debate tactits are merely confirmation of your inability to discuss the issues. As I said you are out of your league here.
Your core value system is based on a false premise brought forth by your previous education. This is blatantly obvious to anyone reading this.
Use some critical thinking for a change, question all you know, ask why we are where we are, how did we get here, and where and how will we fix these problems?
Doing so will give you a clearer picture of our past and present.
I love how a kid that has yet to travel the world, has the audacity to claim others are out of their league. :lol:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 09:22:53 AM
Yes, that's exactly what I said. The "US-Supported invasion Of Indonesia." Indonesia is a Muslim country. I appreciate you making my point for me.
However, by 1998 most of the worst atrocities were already completed.
This is not really a deniable issue as US government leaders have apologized to certain quarters for this.
All of the weaponry for Indonesia came from the west and virtually all from the US. The US supported with weapons and training throughout. Gerald Ford gave his blessing to the invasion for Suharto in 1976, a meeting you can now read the de-classified document for.
So not sure what you are disagreeing about here.
LEMME GUESS YOU GOT THAT FROM A socialist website :popcorn:http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/12/kiss-d19.html
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yet you keep telling us you aren;t a Lib...okay so you are a marxist am I right?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Suharto was a no friend of the USA, and no one knows the true context of the meeting between him and Ford, Kissinger denies there was any sort of tacit approval for any 'invasion' of E TIMOR. Suharto may have bought weapons from the USA (and Europe) but so what.
Most of the atrocities (some say 20,000 killings) were committed in the 90's when an increasingly violent group of Muslim terrorists controlled by Abu Bakar Bashir (Jama'ah Islamiyah) focused on the Christian element. Bashir is hardly any part of the ANY Indonesian Govt.
Quote from: Solar on May 15, 2015, 09:41:05 AM
Which has what to do with Venezuela or Cuba? See, two can play your stupid game of gotcha.
Carter had everything to do with what is currently happening in the M/E, just as the Marxist is exacerbating the current problems.
At least try and make sense when you post, and learn to use the quote function if you expect me to follow your derailed train of thought.
Again, thank Carter.
It also exposes your ignorance of culture in the M/E. These people are living in the 7th century and follow the teachings of war and conquer.
Fail!!!! Correlation is not causation.
I would have torn apart their BS claims, but I got this response when I tried to read it.I today's world, one does not have to pay for facts if they are true and not agenda driven.
Your citations have yet to prove correlation.
As I stated earlier, DU may be a possible link, but one that has yet to be proven.
All you've done ie prove my point, that they only suspect it as being part of an issue.
Uhhh, hello! That's been my point all along.
Your core value system is based on a false premise brought forth by your previous education. This is blatantly obvious to anyone reading this.
Use some critical thinking for a change, question all you know, ask why we are where we are, how did we get here, and where and how will we fix these problems?
Doing so will give you a clearer picture of our past and present.
I love how a kid that has yet to travel the world, has the audacity to claim others are out of their league. :lol:
You didn't respond to one thing that I wrote. Reach through each of your responses to my quotations. Not one of them has any relation to what I said.
When you get isolated on a single point you run all over gods creation. For example, when I say the 1953 Iranian coup lead to the Iranian revolution you say exactly "Carters fault."
What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with Carter? Was he President in 1953?
I say perhaps we should hold off on using DU because of the weight of evidence suggesting its harmful. You say "Exactly my point." No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that wars tough so to bad. What are you saying?
You say I haven't travelled the world. How do you know that? How old am I? Have you travelled to Iraq? Iran? Syria? El Salvador? North Dakota? Have you ever made a comment about a place you didn't travel too? Does travelling to a country immediately deliver you everything there is to know about it?
You make the claim that all muslims are living in the 7th century. Not the way the CIA, or Mossad sees it, or most of scholarship.
DO some Muslims live in the 7th century? Yeah absolutely. Certainly not the ones living in New York. Or the vast majority of muslims in the middle east who hate ISIS and salafi teaching
Who funded such fundamelist teachings? Well mainly Saudi Arabia as a way to buffer the Soviets in the late 1970s.
You are a schtick. A charade. Nothing you say has any bearing on what I wrote in any degree. You are completely overmatched.
My education was self-taught. In college I studied data techniques. I did not study politics nor did any Professor I had in any way shape my views. My views fall all over the political spectrum.
You were annihilated in this debate and I don't say that in a self-congratuarloy way. Its just you are incapable of an intelligent discussion and literally cant follow the logic of a point. You have gone back on virtually everything you said. I hope you are not a relfection of what the tea party actually thinks because as far as I can tell you I cant detect anything you know outside of regurgitating gibberish unrelated to any point discussed.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 10:00:43 AM
You didn't respond to one thing that I wrote. Reach through each of your responses to my quotations. Not one of them has any relation to what I said.
When you get isolated on a single point you run all over gods creation. For example, when I say the 1953 Iranian coup lead to the Iranian revolution you say exactly "Carters fault."
What the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do with Carter? Was he President in 1953?
I say perhaps we should hold off on using DU because of the weight of evidence suggesting its harmful. You say "Exactly my point." No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that wars tough so to bad. What are you saying?
You say I haven't travelled the world. How do you know that? How old am I? Have you travelled to Iraq? Iran? Syria? El Salvador? North Dakota? Have you ever made a comment about a place you didn't travel too? Does travelling to a country immediately deliver you everything there is to know about it?
You make the claim that all muslims are living in the 7th century. Not the way the CIA, or Mossad sees it, or most of scholarship.
DO some Muslims live in the 7th century? Yeah absolutely. Certainly not the ones living in New York. Or the vast majority of muslims in the middle east who hate ISIS and salafi teaching
Who funded such fundamelist teachings? Well mainly Saudi Arabia as a way to buffer the Soviets in the late 1970s.
You are a schtick. A charade. Nothing you say has any bearing on what I wrote in any degree. You are completely overmatched.
My education was self-taught. In college I studied data techniques. I did not study politics nor did any Professor I had in any way shape my views. My views fall all over the political spectrum.
You were annihilated in this debate and I don't say that in a self-congratuarloy way. Its just you are incapable of an intelligent discussion and literally cant follow the logic of a point. You have gone back on virtually everything you said. I hope you are not a relfection of what the tea party actually thinks because as far as I can tell you I cant detect anything you know outside of regurgitating gibberish unrelated to any point discussed.
What do you want to discuss, Iran or E Timor...what debate? Everything you are blabbering about is some Leftist talking point, then you get caught quoting something from the socialist web site I posted a link to.
Your cred is on the skids bucko.
You are aware that Stalin grabbed most of Iran after WW2...right? You are aware the KGB put some Puppet on the Peacock throne in Terhan right? You are aware that this was a pretext for Russian to grab control of the Straits of Hormuz and oil production in the ME right....sure we coup'd Iran, we set up the Shah who friendly to US interests and overrulled the idiotic 14th centruy Sharia law Mullah's and tried to move his country forward, then of course Russian made as many problems as possible with the Iranian Tuedah party (communists) the Religious Fanatics in their country
threw in with the Tuedah party and overthrew the Shah....and the reign of terror the instituted was ten times as worse as anything the Shah ever thought about doing.
And yeah Jimmy Carter us to blame, he threw the Shah under the bus over "human rights Violations" that was a real joke, the Mullah's started lining people up at the firing squad by the dozens before he touched down in L.A.
>newbie
Hey, sonny. Aside from hearing it from someone who WAS there, what part about getting your tail whipped do you fail to understand here?
Is there ANYTHING you actually like about America? Are you even capable of expressing it, without dragging in what you obviously hate?
Rise to my challenge.
Quote from: quiller on May 15, 2015, 10:12:47 AM
>newbie
Hey, sonny. Aside from hearing it from someone who WAS there, what part about getting your tail whipped do you fail to understand here?
Is there ANYTHING you actually like about America? Are you even capable of expressing it, without dragging in what you obviously hate?
Rise to my challenge.
the petson was there in 1998 essentially after the invasion and he vacked up what i said. Indonesia invaded east timor with us blessing and weapons. Thus yes indonesian muslims did the killing against east timorese christians. The us didnt kill one oerson directly but through indonesia.
I like anerican culture. American people. The fact that we are the freest country on earth. American charitable nature. I like thar we beat the crap out of facists. I dont like when we comitt crimes.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 10:11:22 AM
What do you want to discuss, Iran or E Timor...what debate? Everything you are blabbering about is some Leftist talking point, then you get caught quoting something from the socialist web site I posted a link to.
Your cred is on the skids bucko.
You are aware that Stalin grabbed most of Iran after WW2...right? You are aware the KGB put some Puppet on the Peacock throne in Terhan right? You are aware that this was a pretext for Russian to grab control of the Straits of Hormuz and oil production in the ME right....sure we coup'd Iran, we set up the Shah who friendly to US interests and overrulled the idiotic 14th centruy Sharia law Mullah's and tried to move his country forward, then of course Russian made as many problems as possible with the Iranian Tuedah party (communists) the Religious Fanatics in their country
threw in with the Tuedah party and overthrew the Shah....and the reign of terror the instituted was ten times as worse as anything the Shah ever thought about doing.
And yeah Jimmy Carter us to blame, he threw the Shah under the bus over "human rights Violations" that was a real joke, the Mullah's started lining people up at the firing squad by the dozens before he touched down in L.A.
Lets start with iran.
Mossadeq, who we overthrow rejected russian deals on oil, etc. He was a mwmber of the non alligned movement. The overwhelming base of his party were secular nationalists. He was at the time in an oil sharing agreement with england. We overthrew him to stop him from trying to nationalize iranian oil. The tudeh hated him for refusing the russian deal. He was no communist.
The shah wrote in his memoirs that he was embarassed by carters support. Carter praised him in speeches up until he was overthrown and carter considered the shah a staple of mideast policy.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 10:27:41 AM
Lets start with iran.
Mossadeq, who we overthrow rejected russian deals on oil, etc. He was a mwmber of the non alligned movement. The overwhelming base of his party were secular nationalists. He was at the time in an oil sharing agreement with england. We overthrew him to stop him from trying to nationalize iranian oil. The tudeh hated him for refusing the russian deal. He was no communist.
The shah wrote in his memoirs that he was embarassed by carters support. Carter praised him in speeches up until he was overthrown and carter considered the shah a staple of mideast policy.
He was no communist....yet he was trying to Nationalize Oil.....your own words :popcorn:
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
He was no communist....yet he was trying to Nationalize Oil.....your own words :popcorn:
he wanted iranians to be in control of iranian oil but was willing to share orifits with england. England wanted control.
The communist party hated him and as i said he rebuffed russian oil deals. He openly praised american stly governance. The nationakists in iran wanted to natioanlize oil not the communists.
Can you think of counties with nationalized oil now that arent communists? Answer yes.
Read the declassified record on this snd those who carried out the coup openly labeled him anti communist.
You dont know what your saying.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 14, 2015, 01:46:55 PM
I made no such statements.
I cited 50 articles, the US air force, and veterans of war, among others, as evidence that depleted uranium causes cancer and reproductive health issues.
I am still awaiting a response from some on those issues.
SO far I got a pitcher of a baseball player sliding into base and requests for evidence.
Here is more:
"When DU explodes, it produces a very fine uranium dust. When children play near wrecked tanks, they can absorb this dust through their skin, their mouths and their airways. A 2002 study at the University of Bremen in northern Germany found that chromosomal changes had occurred in Gulf war veterans who had come into contact with uranium ammunition."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/researchers-studying-high-rates-of-cancer-and-birth-defects-in-iraq-a-873225.html
SInce you refuse to read the new 50 soruced compilation study Ill go back further.
Now go ahead and be quick to defend what could have been harm to US troops for some reason I don't know.
Shouldn't we err on the side of caution here?
Does Kuwait have the same problem? How many of this type of munitions was used in decimating the Iraqi forces in gulf war 1? How many of our troops were exposed to the burned out tanks and equipment destroyed with this type of munitions? Is this a medical issue with the VA that treats the vets from Gulf war 1? Why is it isolated to Iraq? Could it be from the effects of damaged WMD that we hit in our bombing campaigns in Iraq? Remember our sensors detected low level WMD as we came into the Iraqi cities in Gulf war 2! How can anyone just point to depleted uranium as the cause?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 10:38:52 AM
he wanted iranians to be in control of iranian oil but was willing to share orifits with england. England wanted control.
The communist party hated him and as i said he rebuffed russian oil deals. He openly praised american stly governance. The nationakists in iran wanted to natioanlize oil not the communists.
Can you think of counties with nationalized oil now that arent communists? Answer yes.
Read the declassified record on this snd those who carried out the coup openly labeled him anti communist.
You dont know what your saying
Yeah I don;t know what I'm saying and then you come up with this BS in your original post about how he was in business with the Brits.....why would Britain and the US want Mossadeq out of the way if that was true?
He wanted to limit British oil, that was just the first step.... likely that means seize all the assets and machinery and Nationalize the oil industry and turn around and go into business with the Soviets I beleive the Iranian Parliment took steps to nationalize the oil and thus the stage was set to throw the Brits out....doesn't that make more sense to you? Especially in light of the fact that Russians and Iranians have been business partners and land owners since the days of the Tzars.
As I said and this is a fact, Stalin seized huge chunks of Iran after ww2, Stalin stated many times he would control Iran and he wanted the straits of Hormuz, that was a stated KGB goal, IRANIAN OIL was the "property" of Russia his best shot was through mOSSADEQ..... Both the US and Britain knew this....The Shah confirmed this as well, are you aware that the Shah put US AIr Force missle systems and radar detection sites in his country? AND sent lots and lots of his people to the US in the 1960's and 70's not just in military training but colleges as well, he wanted them to be on par with the rest of Europe and the modern world, he knew Russia's goal and he knew the continual problems the KGB was creating for him.
My Older Brother was actually stationed in Northern Iran in the 1960's.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 11:01:02 AM
Yeah I don;t know what I'm saying and then you come up with this BS in your original post about how he was in business with the Brits.....why would Britain and the US want Mossadeq out of the way if that was true?
He wanted to limit British oil, that was just the first step.... likely that means seize all the assets and machinery and Nationalize the oil industry and turn around and go into business with the Soviets I beleive the Iranian Parliment took steps to nationalize the oil and thus the stage was set to throw the Brits out....doesn't that make more sense to you? Especially in light of the fact that Russians and Iranians have been business partners and land owners since the days of the Tzars.
As I said and this is a fact, Stalin seized huge chunks of Iran after ww2, Stalin stated many times he would control Iran and he wanted the straits of Hormuz, that was a stated KGB goal, IRANIAN OIL was the "property" of Russia his best shot was through mOSSADEQ..... Both the US and Britain knew this....The Shah confirmed this as well, are you aware that the Shah put US AIr Force missle systems and radar detection sites in his country? AND sent lots and lots of his people to the US in the 1960's and 70's not just in military training but colleges as well, he wanted them to be on par with the rest of Europe and the modern world, he knew Russia's goal and he knew the continual problems the KGB was creating for him.
My Older Brother was actually stationed in Northern Iran in the 1960's.
We have a day to day declassified record on this. Read it. Britisn wanted to maintain control and the iranian people voted him to nationalize their own resource. There were no communist issues in any of their discussions. Try again. You are atguing with people who carried out the policy not me.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 11:04:01 AM
We have a day to day declassified record on this. Read it. Britisn wanted to maintain control and the iranian people voted him to nationalize their own resource. There were no communist issues in any of their discussions. Try again. You are atguing with people who carried out the policy not me.
I'm arguing with your speculated version of events which ignores historical fact of Russia seizing huge partitions of Iran.
Viewed in that context what LOGICALLY do you think was the end game for Stalin/Soviets regarding Iran and its oil resources?
And you are just plain wrong about communist influences, the Tuedah Party threw their support behind Mossadeq over nationalism
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 10:20:03 AM
the petson was there in 1998 essentially after the invasion and he vacked up what i said. Indonesia invaded east timor with us blessing and weapons. Thus yes indonesian muslims did the killing against east timorese christians. The us didnt kill one oerson directly but through indonesia.
I like anerican culture. American people. The fact that we are the freest country on earth. American charitable nature. I like thar we beat the crap out of facists. I dont like when we comitt crimes.
I repeat --- spellcheck is your friend. And no, you are obviously incapable of saying nice things about America. All you snivel about are its alleged crimes.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 11:11:30 AM
I'm arguing with your speculated version of events which ignores historical fact of Russia seizing huge partitions of Iran.
Viewed in that context what LOGICALLY do you think was the end game for Stalin/Soviets regarding Iran and its oil resources?
And you are just plain wrong about communist influences, the Tuedah Party threw their support behind Mossadeq over nationalism
Check Mate
Russia had nothing to do with this and you can pretend all you want.
The US and British described Iranian popular opinion during these years as unwilling to "subordinate personal interests to communal ones. They are vain and conceited." "Nearly all classes have a passion for personal gain and are ready to do most things for money." That the salvation of Iran "would be a twenty year occupation of a foreign power." Documents made clear that they decided to fabricate a story that Mossadeq was smoking opium. They referred to him as the "wily oriental" with "short and stuby legs."
The General they picked to help orchestrate the coup was General Zahedi who was a reunound anti-semite with ties to NAZI Germany.
They came up with a plan to "portry him as favoring the communists" though some worried, like Dean Acheson, that such a plan was silly, since it would be so obviously fake since it was obvious he in no way favored communists and had rebuffed numerous Russian offers.
They also put out a story that "the communists are plotting against Musaddiq's life, and are trying to plant responsbilty onto the British."
Leaflets wre sent out "in the name of tudeh heralding the imminent dawn of a bright new atheist republic." Note, not that Mossadiq was going to start the communist republic but that his overthrow was imminent. This was in an effort to "Destabilize the regime" to make it prime for the coup. Articles were planted that "tudeh had infiltrated the nationalist front" and were planning a coup. Tudeh at the time had "20,000 members" and was "in no position seize power." The British and American government complained of Mossadeqs neutrality and "new he was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the United states."
In fact, prior to the oil disagreement with England, The Truman administration was warning that "if Mossadeq was not helped the tudeh(communsits) would take over." England replied that "Tudeh was no real threat."
All sources from the declassified archves:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 08:54:54 AM
Abstract
Iraq is suffering from depleted uranium (DU) pollution in many regions and the effects of this may harm public health through poisoning and increased incidence of various cancers and birth defects. DU is a known carcinogenic agent. About 1200 tonnes of ammunition were dropped on Iraq during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003. As a result, contamination occurred in more than 350 sites in Iraq. Currently, Iraqis are facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7000 to 8000 new ones registered each year. In Baghdad cancer incidences per 100,000 population have increased, just as they have also increased in Basra. The overall incidence of breast and lung cancer , Leukaemia and Lymphoma, has doubled, even tripled. The situation in Mosul city is similar to other regions. Before the Gulf Wars Mosul had a higher rate of cancer, but the rate of cancer has further increased since the Gulf Wars.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13623699.2013.765173#.VVYTfsvjhoI
Depleted uranium and cancer in Danish Balkan veterans deployed 1992–2001
HH Storm, HO Jørgensen, AMT Kejs... - ... Journal of Cancer, 2006 - Elsevier
... 8 cases], France [5 cases], The Netherlands [2 cases], Denmark [2 cases] were linked to the use
of depleted uranium (DU) enforced ... This is a 30% increase in risk. ... by DU was used, as well as
being in agreement with studies of workers with decades of exposure to uranium. ...
Cited by 38 Related articles All 6 versions Cite SaveSaved
http://truthalerts.com/iraqi-birth-defects-worse-than-hiroshima/
That's now56 citations. Most recent research which I didn't even read yet, said that cancner rate in Iraq has gone up 4000% with 14..7 out of every 100 children born with birth defects. Especailly in Fallujah where heavy use of white phorpohours and DU were found.
Is it possible that DU isn't the cause? Absolutely. But the research seems pretty heavy that it plays a role. Perhaps we shouldn't use till we know huh?
I don't care how old you are. Someone who has seen as much as you should not be alleging I get my views from Proffessors without a shred of evidence. I get my views from my own research. Such childish debate tactics are right in line with you calling me a leftist, a lib or whatever slander is your choice for the moment.
Such evasive debate tactits are merely confirmation of your inability to discuss the issues. As I said you are out of your league here.
A meteor may fall out of the sky and drop on my head. Not probable though.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on May 15, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
He was no communist....yet he was trying to Nationalize Oil.....your own words :popcorn:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on May 15, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Make all those smiley faces all you want. I just quoted and cited Dean Acheson, Truman, Eisenhower, the British Foreign Office and the coup planners as decisively saying he was not communist. Mossadeq was demonstrably anti-communist and in fact imposed harsh measures on them. Your ineptitude at learning is not by responstility to remedy.
To think nationalizing a resource equals communism is to emit nothing but ignorance.
So put your smiley faces at those leaders I quoted and continue to show your best contribution to this site is smiley faces devoid of any intellectual refrain.
As for your metor in your head analogy. That the cancer rates have risen thosuands of percentage points is not in doubt. The question is what the precise cause is with the majority of the research blaming DU.
You are a joke and your impotent response is not something men of intellect take seriously.
I cam on this site and single handedly destroyed every one of you.
Still looking for intelligent debaters.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 01:42:45 PM
Make all those smiley faces all you want. I just quoted and cited Dean Acheson, Truman, Eisenhower, the British Foreign Office and the coup planners as decisively saying he was not communist. Mossadeq was demonstrably anti-communist and in fact imposed harsh measures on them. Your ineptitude at learning is not by responstility to remedy.
To think nationalizing a resource equals communism is to emit nothing but ignorance.
So put your smiley faces at those leaders I quoted and continue to show your best contribution to this site is smiley faces devoid of any intellectual refrain.
As for your metor in your head analogy. That the cancer rates have risen thosuands of percentage points is not in doubt. The question is what the precise cause is with the majority of the research blaming DU.
You are a joke and your impotent response is not something men of intellect take seriously.
I cam on this site and single handedly destroyed every one of you.
Still looking for intelligent debaters.
You're getting your ass kicked by people with more knowledge and experience than you. You're not the first anti-American liberal to come in here and get stomped, so please give me some leeway to laugh at you when you fall on your face.
Still waiting for proof that DU has been harming our soldiers, supporting your point that the US violates human rights.
Quote from: taxed on May 15, 2015, 01:47:39 PM
You're getting your ass kicked by people with more knowledge and experience than you. You're not the first anti-American liberal to come in here and get stomped, so please give me some leeway to laugh at you when you fall on your face.
Still waiting for proof that DU has been harming our soldiers, supporting your point that the US violates human rights.
Another comment from you devoid of any position or fact. Anyone can write what you just wrote as it is just a statement without substance source, etc.
The fact that you are calling me a liberal is hysterical, as I am not. I am just a learned person who knows so much more then you its not even funny.
The sources, now 56, have been provided to you. Pick one and read one.
Otherwise come up with something.
I am the only one here who cites a fact.
You are typing lol repetitively cause you have nothing to offer on any topic other then to say the word lib, Marxist, muslim, etc. Comically, you don't even know what one of the words means.
Anybody who thinks nationalizing and industry equates communism is an utter moron. It is such a profoundly ignorant statement that it literally discredits virtually anything else what can say.
Mossadeq was, as I have cited, not a communist according to himself, dean Acheson, harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, the entire british foreign office, the cia, nsa, the irranian people, the soviet union, the communist party within Iran, all of scholarship, etc.
You and nobody else has any response to that. The CIA coup, which installed a brutal dictator who tortured and killed thousands of peoples, is a classic example of a human rights abuse and one that is no longer debtable, as the documets of the error that outline the policy are fully released.
You are joke and until you respond with substance I will ignore you from here on out.
Quote from: taxed on May 15, 2015, 01:23:23 PM
A meteor may fall out of the sky and drop on my head. Not probable though.
I've got an image for that. :rolleyes:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 01:57:24 PM
Another comment from you devoid of any position or fact. Anyone can write what you just wrote as it is just a statement without substance source, etc.
I'm the one waiting for you to prove your claims. You picked DU, and fell on your face hard. You tried to use it to support your claim that the US is a human rights violater.
Quote
The fact that you are calling me a liberal is hysterical, as I am not. I am just a learned person who knows so much more then you its not even funny.
You're not learned, but don't worry so much about that. Liberals always think they're learned, when they know nothing. I am convinced, acadamia hurts students by eliminating critical thinking, and indoctrinating them with Marxist propganda. It sounds like you have gagged a time or two on that spoon.
Quote
The sources, now 56, have been provided to you. Pick one and read one.
I read a few. Nothing that proved DU hurts our soldiers. You parroters have been trying to push this for a few years, but smart, intellectual people don't buy it. There may be a possibility, but nothing remotely close has been proven. You're trying to sell me on BS, and as a logical person, I remain unconvinced. Find me something real and concrete, and I can be convinced. I am not married to any position. I'm simply saying "prove it", or at the least, show me something close enough. I understand if people eat it or take a bath in it, it can cause some problems. That's not what I'm lookign for. I'm asking how it has been hurting our soldiers. You have nothing to show, so far.
Quote
Otherwise come up with something.
I let the facts stand on their own.
Quote
I am the only one here who cites a fact.
No, you're not -- on any topic up to this point. You clutching your fists and jumping up and down, telling us we're wrong and you're right might work elsewhere, but not here.
Quote
You are typing lol repetitively cause you have nothing to offer on any topic other then to say the word lib, Marxist, muslim, etc. Comically, you don't even know what one of the words means.
Actually, I do. You are the one who came here and said, for example, that Hussein isn't a Marxist. That instantly proves you don't even know what you're talking about.
Quote
Anybody who thinks nationalizing and industry equates communism is an utter moron. It is such a profoundly ignorant statement that it literally discredits virtually anything else what can say.
Communism is about private property. You got me.
Quote
Mossadeq was, as I have cited, not a communist according to himself, dean Acheson, harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, the entire british foreign office, the cia, nsa, the irranian people, the soviet union, the communist party within Iran, all of scholarship, etc.
That's always an identifyer of a Marxist. Academia is an area where Marxists can enter, guilt free with a clear concious, and is really the only place a Marxist can point to for validation of Marxist propoganda. Marxsim falls apart in the free market and the real world, hence why you pointing to academia is sort of a joke.
Quote
You and nobody else has any response to that. The CIA coup, which installed a brutal dictator who tortured and killed thousands of peoples, is a classic example of a human rights abuse and one that is no longer debtable, as the documets of the error that outline the policy are fully released.
Start a thread on it and defend it.
Quote
You are joke and until you respond with substance I will ignore you from here on out.
You've already been ignoring me.
Quote from: taxed on May 15, 2015, 02:24:04 PM
Communism is about private property. You got me.
:scared: :scared: :scared: Say it ain't so, comrade!
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 12:00:00 PM
Check Mate
Russia had nothing to do with this and you can pretend all you want.
The US and British described Iranian popular opinion during these years as unwilling to "subordinate personal interests to communal ones. They are vain and conceited." "Nearly all classes have a passion for personal gain and are ready to do most things for money." That the salvation of Iran "would be a twenty year occupation of a foreign power." Documents made clear that they decided to fabricate a story that Mossadeq was smoking opium. They referred to him as the "wily oriental" with "short and stuby legs."
The General they picked to help orchestrate the coup was General Zahedi who was a reunound anti-semite with ties to NAZI Germany.
They came up with a plan to "portry him as favoring the communists" though some worried, like Dean Acheson, that such a plan was silly, since it would be so obviously fake since it was obvious he in no way favored communists and had rebuffed numerous Russian offers.
They also put out a story that "the communists are plotting against Musaddiq's life, and are trying to plant responsbilty onto the British."
Leaflets wre sent out "in the name of tudeh heralding the imminent dawn of a bright new atheist republic." Note, not that Mossadiq was going to start the communist republic but that his overthrow was imminent. This was in an effort to "Destabilize the regime" to make it prime for the coup. Articles were planted that "tudeh had infiltrated the nationalist front" and were planning a coup. Tudeh at the time had "20,000 members" and was "in no position seize power." The British and American government complained of Mossadeqs neutrality and "new he was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the United states."
In fact, prior to the oil disagreement with England, The Truman administration was warning that "if Mossadeq was not helped the tudeh(communsits) would take over." England replied that "Tudeh was no real threat."
All sources from the declassified archves:
Blah blah blah, present half facts, half truths and ignore the rest, Besides what kind of Imbecile truly beleives that the world was a better place because the Shah of Iran was deposed? If the Shah had been supported by Carter maybe just maybe all this crap wouldn't be going on...ever think of that?
Maybe, just maybe the US wouldn't have had to gone into Iraq and spray the shit out of Iraq (russian) armour with 20 and 30 MM depleted uranium shells. :popcorn:
and IF you are going to use "declassified" archives as the basis of your argument then POST THE LINK so that all may read the entire brief not just what you cherry pick to present your anti American Propaganda.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 15, 2015, 12:00:00 PM
Check Mate
Russia had nothing to do with this and you can pretend all you want.
The US and British described Iranian popular opinion during these years as unwilling to "subordinate personal interests to communal ones. They are vain and conceited." "Nearly all classes have a passion for personal gain and are ready to do most things for money." That the salvation of Iran "would be a twenty year occupation of a foreign power." Documents made clear that they decided to fabricate a story that Mossadeq was smoking opium. They referred to him as the "wily oriental" with "short and stuby legs."
The General they picked to help orchestrate the coup was General Zahedi who was a reunound anti-semite with ties to NAZI Germany.
They came up with a plan to "portry him as favoring the communists" though some worried, like Dean Acheson, that such a plan was silly, since it would be so obviously fake since it was obvious he in no way favored communists and had rebuffed numerous Russian offers.
They also put out a story that "the communists are plotting against Musaddiq's life, and are trying to plant responsbilty onto the British."
Leaflets wre sent out "in the name of tudeh heralding the imminent dawn of a bright new atheist republic." Note, not that Mossadiq was going to start the communist republic but that his overthrow was imminent. This was in an effort to "Destabilize the regime" to make it prime for the coup. Articles were planted that "tudeh had infiltrated the nationalist front" and were planning a coup. Tudeh at the time had "20,000 members" and was "in no position seize power." The British and American government complained of Mossadeqs neutrality and "new he was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the United states."
In fact, prior to the oil disagreement with England, The Truman administration was warning that "if Mossadeq was not helped the tudeh(communsits) would take over." England replied that "Tudeh was no real threat."
All sources from the declassified archves:
Source?
Quote from: taxed on May 15, 2015, 02:24:04 PM
I'm the one waiting for you to prove your claims. You picked DU, and fell on your face hard. You tried to use it to support your claim that the US is a human rights violater.
You're not learned, but don't worry so much about that. Liberals always think they're learned, when they know nothing. I am convinced, acadamia hurts students by eliminating critical thinking, and indoctrinating them with Marxist propganda. It sounds like you have gagged a time or two on that spoon.
I read a few. Nothing that proved DU hurts our soldiers. You parroters have been trying to push this for a few years, but smart, intellectual people don't buy it. There may be a possibility, but nothing remotely close has been proven. You're trying to sell me on BS, and as a logical person, I remain unconvinced. Find me something real and concrete, and I can be convinced. I am not married to any position. I'm simply saying "prove it", or at the least, show me something close enough. I understand if people eat it or take a bath in it, it can cause some problems. That's not what I'm lookign for. I'm asking how it has been hurting our soldiers. You have nothing to show, so far.
I let the facts stand on their own.
No, you're not -- on any topic up to this point. You clutching your fists and jumping up and down, telling us we're wrong and you're right might work elsewhere, but not here.
Actually, I do. You are the one who came here and said, for example, that Hussein isn't a Marxist. That instantly proves you don't even know what you're talking about.
Communism is about private property. You got me.
That's always an identifyer of a Marxist. Academia is an area where Marxists can enter, guilt free with a clear concious, and is really the only place a Marxist can point to for validation of Marxist propoganda. Marxsim falls apart in the free market and the real world, hence why you pointing to academia is sort of a joke.
Start a thread on it and defend it.
You've already been ignoring me.
He thinks his outlook is unique, but like so many 20 somethings raised primarily by mom whom instilled in him feminine ideals of the bleeding heart, that all aggression is bad, especially where Bush was concerned and the US Govt can't be trusted, but the UN can.
Never once considering the UN is run by American hating commies and Muscum, that see the US as an impediment to the destruction of Israel.
He thinks he's an informed and reformed enlightened lib, one that voted for the so "acclaimed black" guy because it was time, now realizes what a mistake he made as a ignorant follower, but still hate Republicans because mom did.
So now he considers himself a Libertarian, when in fact he just a self appointed LIBertarian, that hasn't a clue as to what it means to be one, or what values real Libertarians hold.
But somehow this kid thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he doesn't source American propaganda, no...He sources the UN, and other enemies of capitalism and Western culture.
Instead of having the ability for critical thought, he absorbs this nonsense as truth, never once questioning it, then regurgitates it here and thinks he has bested people with 10 times the life experience he has, a person who has yet to carve their own place out in life, marry, raise a family, but still thinks he has all the answers.
You know the type? The lib that comes in telling us business owners how to run a business because they have the experience from years at the drive-up window handing out fries and burgers.
Fact is, one day reality will hit him, he'll discover we were right, Hussein is a Marxist, that was raised by communists that hate America, someone who hand picked actual communists to be in his Cabinet from DA to personal adviser.
But until the kid wakes up and figures all this out for himself, there's no getting through to mommy's little "Specthal Jewel".
Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:44:56 PM
I guess what I am asking is then do all countries have the right to use uranium tipped shells?
Even if you are right about uranium tipped shells, and taking the logic further to include all chemical or biological weapons then the answer is only countries that embrace Liberty and Private property of individuals in accordance with conservative principles have the right to use these weapons.
Enforcement of that right depends on who is in office though, and as we have seen for the last decade when socialists have responsibility to enforce that right then the countries/people's/religions that don't have that right goes on a killing spree.
Fundamentally the difference between conservatives/reactionaries and liberals/socialists is when civilians die because of our application of weapons they are collateral damage or the tragic consequence of the people supporting genocidal tyrants, but with socialists as seen in socialist countries such as for example national socialist Germany or Syria/iraq then the civilians are the target.
Quote from: Mountainshield on May 16, 2015, 05:38:28 AM
Even if you are right about uranium tipped shells, and taking the logic further to include all chemical or biological weapons then the answer is only countries that embrace Liberty and Private property of individuals in accordance with conservative principles have the right to use these weapons.
Enforcement of that right depends on who is in office though, and as we have seen for the last decade when socialists have responsibility to enforce that right then the countries/people's/religions that don't have that right goes on a killing spree.
Fundamentally the difference between conservatives/reactionaries and liberals/socialists is when civilians die because of our application of weapons they are collateral damage or the tragic consequence of the people supporting genocidal tyrants, but with socialists as seen in socialist countries such as for example national socialist Germany or Syria/iraq then the civilians are the target.
That logic is right out of Hitlers mouth.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 07:51:57 AM
That logic is right out of Hitlers mouth.
You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 08:16:17 AM
You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/
Driven by this sort of rhetoric, a conviction has taken hold among many conservatives that the president is actively hostile to the very idea of a market-based economy. That's a much different charge than the one Obama seemed likely to face just a few months ago — not that he was too hostile to capitalism, but that he was too accommodating of it. Obama's indulgence toward the big Wall Street banks after the financial crisis once appeared to be his greatest vulnerability. Some Democrats in Congress can even pinpoint the date on which they believe the American public turned against them and the president, driven by disgust over Wall Street's unchecked excesses. It was March 15, 2009, when the news broke that executives at AIG would receive millions of dollars in bonuses.
For Obama, the danger of this latter, now mostly forgotten, line of attack is that unlike the current one, it is true: He took a hands-off approach to the banks as part of a larger strategy to stem the crisis, a choice that he has never been very good at explaining, and thus has the potential to hurt him. His administration's strategy depended on private markets, rather than on the government, and entailed propping up the same banks that had wrought the damage.
When the administration came into office, the economy was shrinking at frightening speed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and several of his colleagues had dealt with the financial crises in Mexico and Asian during the 1990s and believed they knew how best to stop this one. Along with fiscal stimulus and looser monetary policy, they considered it imperative to recapitalize the banking sector and get it lending again.
Traditionally, after a financial crisis, the government has furnished that money — lots of it. Research by the Cleveland Fed puts the typical cost of such a bailout at 5 to 10 percent of GDP, which would have left US taxpayers on the hook for as much as $1.5 trillion. Obama's plan (really, Geithner's) was to persuade private investors to come up with that money. The "stress tests" applied to the largest banks were meant to demonstrate that the banks weren't about to fail.
http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2012/02/why_its_dumb_to_call_obama_a_socialist.html
I hesitate to discuss issue with someone who relies on racist remarks and other labels, such as lib, leftist, etc to make points.
All one has to do is look at the finanial contributions to Obams two terms. They are overwhelmingly from the banks for starters, who he then went on to staff his entire whitehouse.
Obamacare is a private system, one in which he rejected the public option as a means to compte against it despite overwhelming public support.
During his term in office, 95 PERCENT of the post recession gains have gone to the top one percent. The wealthier are doing better then ever. Its the poor and middle class whoa re still suffering.
You are a joke and nobody outside this site would take you seriously. The fact that a mentor of Obamas, a product of 60s, held socialist beliefs is a pathetic piece of evidence that he is a comunnist when his tenure in power shows nothing of the sort.
You dont know what a communist is, you dont know how it differs from marxism. Is a public school communism? A publci road? The public military? Did you know Obama is pushing to privatize the VA?
Just the mere fact that you are equating communism with marx in the manner you are is idiotic to say the least.
The president who oversaw the greatest increase in fedeeral power was President GWB. If you dont know that then thats your problem.
How about the demands of CUba that in order to get certain rights they must liberalize their economy? How about withholding food supplies in HOnduras by Obanma until liberlaization polcies took place?
How about this free trade agreement whcih is being written by corproate lawyers and gives companies the right to sue governemnts?
You are an uneducated bigot.
Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 12:22:26 PM
You have to take anything the UN says about the US, with an overdose of skepticism.
They hate us, there is no other way to put it.
As to TEA, we are, just that Taxed Enough Already. TEA is about returning govt to the people, shrinking the Hell out of it and returning it to the States, where it belongs.
And to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 17, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
And to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The constitution included clauses preserving slavery. Defending those?
You worship a 200 plus year old document written by a bunch of slaveholders and genocidal monsters?
Pathetic.
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 08:16:17 AM
You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/
Good save, Solar. Thanks for posting it.
Some years ago, when Islam started to really become a problem in England, I got on a discussion board from UK. There was a scholar well versed in the Fabians. His writing style was not quite like this fellow, but the messages were similar. Tony Blair was PM at the Time, and George Bush President. So, yes, this is a flashback.
The man got to be a little too much for the moderators, so they kicked him off. Not me. I wish I had gotten his name; but of course that was impossible. All names were screen names.
Socialists, Fabians, Communists, national socialists, Bolshevists, they all share the same aim. On that board, we had children who think this is a big word game, like a kitchen argument, too. It is not. Just as an aside, George Bernard Shaw, revered as a wit and playwright, favored mass sterilization of "inferior" intellects. He wanted to engineer the gene pool. How many people would ever make the association of socialists with master race Nazis? Not many, I'd wager.
Quote from: red_dirt on May 17, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Good save, Solar. Thanks for posting it.
Some years ago, when Islam started to really become a problem in England, I got on a discussion board from UK. There was a scholar well versed in the Fabians. His writing style was not quite like this fellow, but the messages were similar. Tony Blair was PM at the Time, and George Bush President. So, yes, this is a flashback.
The man got to be a little too much for the moderators, so they kicked him off. Not me. I wish I had gotten his name; but of course that was impossible. All names were screen names.
Socialists, Fabians, Communists, national socialists, Bolshevists, they all share the same aim. On that board, we had children who think this is a big word game, like a kitchen argument, too. It is not. Just as an aside, George Bernard Shaw, revered as a wit and playwright, favored mass sterilization of "inferior" intellects. He wanted to engineer the gene pool. How many people would ever make the association of socialists with master race Nazis? Not many, I'd wager.
The German socialists hated communists and referred to them as subhuman animals doing the bidding of Jews. Hitler referred to the west in general as stooges of Jews and communists. Germany was not so much socialist as right win facist nationalsits who used re-armament for economic growth.
Anyone who allows their worldview to be determined by one source, especially like this one, is ridicous.
You know we can see and read about whats happening within the white house when nobody is around. Wikilieaks, etc. These things make plain that referring to Obama as a marxist is so off balance that it literally in a real discussion with scholars and experts would ruin your credibility for good.
It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx. If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government.
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy? Why did he staff the white house with corpate insiders? Why did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top 1 percent? Why did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare? Why is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret? Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?
These are real direct questions that none of you answer.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 08:36:52 AM
Driven by this sort of rhetoric, a conviction has taken hold among many conservatives that the president is actively hostile to the very idea of a market-based economy.
He is, in a major way.
QuoteThat's a much different charge than the one Obama seemed likely to face just a few months ago — not that he was too hostile to capitalism, but that he was too accommodating of it.
Where was this charge, and by who? Link to the, or any, source, please.
QuoteObama's indulgence toward the big Wall Street banks after the financial crisis once appeared to be his greatest vulnerability.
That isn't capitalism.
QuoteSome Democrats in Congress can even pinpoint the date on which they believe the American public turned against them and the president, driven by disgust over Wall Street's unchecked excesses. It was March 15, 2009, when the news broke that executives at AIG would receive millions of dollars in bonuses.
Your evidence for Hussein being pro-capitalism is he didn't take their bonues?
QuoteFor Obama, the danger of this latter, now mostly forgotten, line of attack is that unlike the current one, it is true: He took a hands-off approach to the banks as part of a larger strategy to stem the crisis, a choice that he has never been very good at explaining, and thus has the potential to hurt him. His administration's strategy depended on private markets, rather than on the government, and entailed propping up the same banks that had wrought the damage.
How is government interference and subsidizing letting the private markets work? Please explain this one.
QuoteWhen the administration came into office, the economy was shrinking at frightening speed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and several of his colleagues had dealt with the financial crises in Mexico and Asian during the 1990s and believed they knew how best to stop this one. Along with fiscal stimulus and looser monetary policy, they considered it imperative to recapitalize the banking sector and get it lending again.
Why not let the free market take care of it?
QuoteTraditionally, after a financial crisis, the government has furnished that money — lots of it.
No kidding, genius.
QuoteResearch by the Cleveland Fed puts the typical cost of such a bailout at 5 to 10 percent of GDP, which would have left US taxpayers on the hook for as much as $1.5 trillion. Obama's plan (really, Geithner's) was to persuade private investors to come up with that money. The "stress tests" applied to the largest banks were meant to demonstrate that the banks weren't about to fail.
This is getting even better....
Quote
http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2012/02/why_its_dumb_to_call_obama_a_socialist.html
I see where you quoted this idiocy from. Josh Green has never done anything in the business world, except write about it. He is a moron, and should have stayed writing for the Onion. Another great source you picked.
QuoteI hesitate to discuss issue with someone who relies on racist remarks and other labels, such as lib, leftist, etc to make points.
You don't understand the issue in the first place to discuss it.
QuoteAll one has to do is look at the finanial contributions to Obams two terms. They are overwhelmingly from the banks for starters, who he then went on to staff his entire whitehouse.
How does that show he's a capitalist? Who are on the boards and exec positions of these companies? Have you even done this homework?
QuoteObamacare is a private system, one in which he rejected the public option as a means to compte against it despite overwhelming public support.
Just to be clear, you're saying the ACA scam is a private, market-based system?
QuoteDuring his term in office, 95 PERCENT of the post recession gains have gone to the top one percent. The wealthier are doing better then ever. Its the poor and middle class whoa re still suffering.
That is proof he isn't a capitalist. You really don't understand economics. This will be comical.
QuoteYou are a joke and nobody outside this site would take you seriously. The fact that a mentor of Obamas, a product of 60s, held socialist beliefs is a pathetic piece of evidence that he is a comunnist when his tenure in power shows nothing of the sort.
Every time he opens his mouth, pieces from the Communist Manifesto pop out. He is a full blown, out of the closet Marxist.
When did he convert from not being a Marxist? What time period? If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to tell us when.
QuoteYou dont know what a communist is, you dont know how it differs from marxism. Is a public school communism? A publci road? The public military? Did you know Obama is pushing to privatize the VA?
Which of these are a means of production?
QuoteJust the mere fact that you are equating communism with marx in the manner you are is idiotic to say the least.
Oh, do explain...
QuoteThe president who oversaw the greatest increase in fedeeral power was President GWB. If you dont know that then thats your problem.
Point?
QuoteHow about the demands of CUba that in order to get certain rights they must liberalize their economy? How about withholding food supplies in HOnduras by Obanma until liberlaization polcies took place?
Your professor really loaded you up for the weekend, didn't he?
QuoteHow about this free trade agreement whcih is being written by corproate lawyers and gives companies the right to sue governemnts?
You are an uneducated bigot.
Sorry. We have real world experience. You don't, just like Josh Green. You've never had to deal with the effects of government and the market first hand, where you're business is at the mercy of it. You get to parrot what your professors tell you and get a gold star. You don't know what it's like to feel real economic pain and reward. You are a child, plain and simple, and way out of your league on this topic.
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 01:38:08 PM
He is, in a major way.
Where was this charge, and by who? Link to the, or any, source, please.
That isn't capitalism.
Your evidence for Hussein being pro-capitalism is he didn't take their bonues?
How is government interference and subsidizing letting the private markets work? Please explain this one.
Why not let the free market take care of it?
No kidding, genius.
This is getting even better....
I see where you quoted this idiocy from. Josh Green has never done anything in the business world, except write about it. He is a moron, and should have stayed writing for the Onion. Another great source you picked.
You don't understand the issue in the first place to discuss it.
How does that show he's a capitalist? Who are on the boards and exec positions of these companies? Have you even done this homework?
Just to be clear, you're saying the ACA scam is a private, market-based system?
That is proof he isn't a capitalist. You really don't understand economics. This will be comical.
Every time he opens his mouth, pieces from the Communist Manifesto pop out. He is a full blown, out of the closet Marxist.
When did he convert from not being a Marxist? What time period? If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to tell us when.
Which of these are a means of production?
Oh, do explain...
Point?
Your professor really loaded you up for the weekend, didn't he?
Sorry. We have real world experience. You don't, just like Josh Green. You've never had to deal with the effects of government and the market first hand, where you're business is at the mercy of it. You get to parrot what your professors tell you and get a gold star. You don't know what it's like to feel real economic pain and reward. You are a child, plain and simple, and way out of your league on this topic.
I told you yesterday...I will not respond to people who refuse to discuss evidencev and real world situations.
"Your proffesors have been loading it up on you this weekend huh"
Thats not an argument and a waste of time. Breaking an entire paragrpah into one line segments is absolute moronic.
I will await a serious answer from you or will continue to ask....why did the top one perent get 95 percent of the wealth since he took office? Cause my proffesor said so?
Joke.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx. If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government.
I have. You haven't.
Quote
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy. Marxists are the ones who want to be on top.
QuoteWhy did he staff the white house with corpate insiders?
Because he's a Marxist.
QuoteWhy did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top 1 percent?
Because of the stifling of free market capitalism.
QuoteWhy did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare?
You mean insurance companies, and because they don't want to operate in the free market.
QuoteWhy is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret? Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?
Because he's a Marxist.
Quote
These are real direct questions that none of you answer.
Wrong. He's a radical Marxist who is trying to bring our system down. If I wanted to bring down a country as Marx wanted, I would put Hussein in charge.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:43:04 PM
I told you yesterday...I will not respond to people who refuse to discuss evidencev and real world situations.
"Your proffesors have been loading it up on you this weekend huh"
Thats not an argument and a waste of time. Breaking an entire paragrpah into one line segments is absolute moronic.
I will await a serious answer from you or will continue to ask....why did the top one perent get 95 percent of the wealth since he took office? Cause my proffesor said so?
Joke.
You can't discuss this topic, because you are not intellectually equipped. You're not going to ignore. You will answer questions and prove your assertions, per our policy on this forum.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
The constitution included clauses preserving slavery. Defending those?
You worship a 200 plus year old document written by a bunch of slaveholders and genocidal monsters?
Pathetic.
hhmm.... I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.
This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny! And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation. It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured. It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.
I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution. But.... you are not!
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy. Marxists are the ones who want to be on top.
The CEOs of Banks and Wall street are Marxists?
If so, then ROmney was a Marxist and so was Mccain. Because the companies funded both candidates figuring whoever wins they win.
So CEOS, Romney, Obama and Mccain are Marxists? Bush then I'd assume too.
I have laid out my assertions and i will not respond until you answer then proving your assertions.
The below is not a counter-argument. Its just something that makes me laugh.
I say why does he withdraw aid to latin America unless they liberalize their econonomy and you answer...."cause hes a marxist" Really hes threatening to withhold food from countries unless those coutrnies stop their socialist policies of giving land to farmers and you refer this as Marixim? Bahahahahahahahah
"
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy. Marxists are the ones who want to be on top."
That is not a counter-argument. Its just something that makes me laugh. You make me laugh.
Quote from: kroz on May 17, 2015, 01:49:56 PM
hhmm.... I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.
This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny! And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation. It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured. It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.
I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution. But.... you are not!
He's anti-American, like we pegged from the beginning. These guys come in and reak of disdain for our country, and they run around and act like we're misrepresenting them. He is an anti-American Marxist, plain and simple. What he doesn't know is that his attempt to try and steer away from Marxism, using complete idiocy that is 99% of the time spoonfed from Marxist academia, completely outs him as a Marxist. Crap like "Hussein isn't a Marxist" is always #1 when identifying these idiots. Unfortunately, he decided to pull this crap in a forum that happens to have experience, in life and in the business sector, where his crap will get squashed.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
The German socialists hated communists and referred to them as subhuman animals doing the bidding of Jews. Hitler referred to the west in general as stooges of Jews and communists. Germany was not so much socialist as right win facist nationalsits who used re-armament for economic growth.
Anyone who allows their worldview to be determined by one source, especially like this one, is ridicous.
You know we can see and read about whats happening within the white house when nobody is around. Wikilieaks, etc. These things make plain that referring to Obama as a marxist is so off balance that it literally in a real discussion with scholars and experts would ruin your credibility for good.
It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx. If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government.
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy? Why did he staff the white house with corpate insiders? Why did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top 1 percent? Why did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare? Why is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret? Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?
These are real direct questions that none of you answer.
Are you really surprised that wealthy people have influence in government? Hate to tell you this but that is not really uncommon or confined just to this really rotten country you speak of. Men with money usually have more influence that men who have none.
Quote from: kroz on May 17, 2015, 01:49:56 PM
hhmm.... I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.
This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny! And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation. It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured. It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.
I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution. But.... you are not!
I hope you guys will excuse me for chuckling, but I scanned those posts and when I saw that rant on the "200 year old piece of paper," my thought was, "Oh, Boy, wait'll Kroz gets a load of this!" Was I mistaken?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
The constitution included clauses preserving slavery. Defending those?
You worship a 200 plus year old document written by a bunch of slaveholders and genocidal monsters?
Pathetic.
And I suppose you have never learned about all the blood that was shed to free those slaves.
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 02:05:12 PM
He's anti-American, like we pegged from the beginning. These guys come in and reak of disdain for our country, and they run around and act like we're misrepresenting them. He is an anti-American Marxist, plain and simple. What he doesn't know is that his attempt to try and steer away from Marxism, using complete idiocy that is 99% of the time spoonfed from Marxist academia, completely outs him as a Marxist. Crap like "Hussein isn't a Marxist" is always #1 when identifying these idiots. Unfortunately, he decided to pull this crap in a forum that happens to have experience, in life and in the business sector, where his crap will get squashed.
No, but the fact that you call him by his middle name is a joke.
Still waiting for some sources from you and not just bloand boring comments.
Quote from: s3779m on May 17, 2015, 02:12:17 PM
And I suppose you have never learned about all the blood that was shed to free those slaves.
Of course I have. What does that have to do with the constituiton and the people who wrote it?
Americans, as in the people not the government, fixed the constituion.
The feminist moevment, child labor movements, union movements, anti-slavery movements, the bill of rights, these things fixed the constitition and they were done by the american people. Not rich off well to do officials.
Those are the people I remember most fondly.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Of course I have. What does that have to do with the constituiton and the people who wrote it?
Americans, as in the people not the government, fixed the constituion.
The feminist moevment, child labor movements, union movements, anti-slavery movements, the bill of rights, these things fixed the constitition and they were done by the american people. Not rich off well to do officials.
Those are the people I remember most fondly.
Without the protections of they constitution none of those movements could have happened as quick. The men who wrote the constitution were no more perfect than we are, but I don't think there is a better document to form a country on. One quick question, is it wealth or america that you despise so much?
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:54:36 PM
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Those that donated to Hussein do not want to operate within the bounds of the free market, so hope Hussein will continue to crash any free market we have left. Also, a good portion of board members and executives got their positions because of their time in government. If you aren't familiar with how corporations collude with government, then you really need to do some research. You want to obfuscate reality by taking the position that Marxists hate money, when they love it more than anyone else. The working for it part they really hate. Marxists always want to be the ones on top. None of them say "I love Marxism. I can't wait until we're standing in bread lines."
QuoteThe CEOs of Banks and Wall street are Marxists?
Not all of them.
QuoteIf so, then ROmney was a Marxist
Not all CEOs are Marxist. No, I don't think Romney is a Marxist. It would be very hard to do what he's done in his life and be a Marxist.
Quoteand so was Mccain.
McCain is a Marxist, correct.
QuoteBecause the companies funded both candidates figuring whoever wins they win.
Correct. Don't forget about foreign money (obama.com, etc)...
QuoteSo CEOS, Romney, Obama and Mccain are Marxists? Bush then I'd assume too.
No, not all CEOs are Marxists. Jeff Immelt, Eric Schmidt, for example, yes. John Mackey, no. One thing you don't understand, since you don't have experience in business, is that sometimes it is wise to donate to a candidate you don't support, just so you won't be on their shit list if you do get elected. There is strategy that comes into play for political donations, so I would take each one on a case-by-case basis. A small local example of this is when you buy a car sticker that shows you donate to the police department. Whether it works or doesn't work is not relavent, but it's the feeling that it may to put you at some ease.
Quote
I have laid out my assertions and i will not respond until you answer then proving your assertions.
You are again, on this topic, saying something stupid, like Hussein isn't a Marxist, when he is, and trying to use anti-capitalist behavior by government to justify that he really isn't. You need to understand that you're not smart enough to try and obfuscate and deceive us here.
Quote
The below is not a counter-argument. Its just something that makes me laugh.
I say why does he withdraw aid to latin America unless they liberalize their econonomy and you answer...."cause hes a marxist" Really hes threatening to withhold food from countries unless those coutrnies stop their socialist policies of giving land to farmers and you refer this as Marixim? Bahahahahahahahah
Link?
Quote
That is not a counter-argument. Its just something that makes me laugh. You make me laugh.
Wealthy make political donations. I'm sorry to be the one to break this news to you.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 02:12:24 PM
No, but the fact that you call him by his middle name is a joke.
Still waiting for some sources from you and not just bloand boring comments.
You made the claim that Obama is not a Marxist. Post a link to anything that shows he's pro-free market and pro-capitalist. Bailing out Wall Street isn't proof of that.
Please prove it.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 08:36:52 AM
Driven by this sort of rhetoric, a conviction has taken hold among many conservatives that the president is actively hostile to the very idea of a market-based economy.
You are a joke and nobody outside this site would take you seriously. The fact that a mentor of Obamas, a product of 60s, held socialist beliefs is a pathetic piece of evidence that he is a comunnist when his tenure in power shows nothing of the sort.
You are an uneducated bigot.
Why are you afraid to learn something, when it was you that claimed you came here to learn?
All I see is name calling out of ignorance and the fact that I have exposed the party you held dear for so long, causes a reaction solely based out of an emotional response.
Read this and comment, that's all, but read it, I want to hear what you have to say.
"In 1883, the year in which Karl Marx died, a group of restless English intellectuals formed a new socialist organization. The group called itself the LONDON FABIAN SOCIETY . . . the Fabians are committed to achieving socialism gradually by passing new laws. Thus, the Marxists are revolutionary socialists, while the Fabians are evolutionary socialists . . . . The key element in all of the ideas [ of the group ] is environmentalism -- the belief that man was not created by God but is the product of his
surroundings and that to change man, one must simply manipulate the economic, political, and social environment."
"The early Fabians were all vehement in their denial of God and their rejection of the historic Christian faith, although they were not above using liberal Christian ministers to advance their cause . . . . The Fabians chose POLITICS, EDUCATION, and the PRINTED WORD as the primary media through which they would persuade the people of the need for change. Leading Fabians were to penetrate the political parties, the labor unions, the government offices, the schools, the press, and Parliament by securing key positions in these institutions."
"The first changes in English life were made in the schools. Because of its Christian culture, Victorian England had viewed education as a way to train each individual to use his God-given abilities for the glory of God . . . Fabianism, in common with liberalism, progressivism, and the other new philosophies of the 20th century, called for a new philosophy of education. [They ] espoused PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION (education that adjusts the student to society in order progressively to bring in a new world)."
"Education was now viewed as the most advanced phase of the social evolutionary process; thus, the goal of the new education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of the welfare of the society. . . EDUCATION BECAME A MEANS OF DESTROYING TRADITIONAL BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES in order to prepare the British people for socialism . . . Accordingly, education began to be centralized, and curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit the goal of SOCIALIZATION."
Examples of Fabian members are: Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.
"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed -- The Four Pillars of the House :
(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.
Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."
"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .
Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset: a desire for centralized political power."
Americans who have supported liberal ideals are: John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.
QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:
A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71). Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".
Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database:
"Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state. Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."
EXCERPTS from the article:
". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions. In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights. This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."
"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state."
AUTHOR: Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:00:36 PM
Why are you afraid to learn something, when it was you that claimed you came here to learn?
All I see is name calling out of ignorance and the fact that I have exposed the party you held dear for so long, causes a reaction solely based out of an emotional response.
Read this and comment, that's all, but read it, I want to hear what you have to say.
"In 1883, the year in which Karl Marx died, a group of restless English intellectuals formed a new socialist organization. The group called itself the LONDON FABIAN SOCIETY . . . the Fabians are committed to achieving socialism gradually by passing new laws. Thus, the Marxists are revolutionary socialists, while the Fabians are evolutionary socialists . . . . The key element in all of the ideas [ of the group ] is environmentalism -- the belief that man was not created by God but is the product of his
surroundings and that to change man, one must simply manipulate the economic, political, and social environment."
"The early Fabians were all vehement in their denial of God and their rejection of the historic Christian faith, although they were not above using liberal Christian ministers to advance their cause . . . . The Fabians chose POLITICS, EDUCATION, and the PRINTED WORD as the primary media through which they would persuade the people of the need for change. Leading Fabians were to penetrate the political parties, the labor unions, the government offices, the schools, the press, and Parliament by securing key positions in these institutions."
"The first changes in English life were made in the schools. Because of its Christian culture, Victorian England had viewed education as a way to train each individual to use his God-given abilities for the glory of God . . . Fabianism, in common with liberalism, progressivism, and the other new philosophies of the 20th century, called for a new philosophy of education. [They ] espoused PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION (education that adjusts the student to society in order progressively to bring in a new world)."
"Education was now viewed as the most advanced phase of the social evolutionary process; thus, the goal of the new education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of the welfare of the society. . . EDUCATION BECAME A MEANS OF DESTROYING TRADITIONAL BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES in order to prepare the British people for socialism . . . Accordingly, education began to be centralized, and curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit the goal of SOCIALIZATION."
Examples of Fabian members are: Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.
"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed -- The Four Pillars of the House :
(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.
Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."
"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .
Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset: a desire for centralized political power."
Americans who have supported liberal ideals are: John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.
QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:
A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71). Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".
Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database:
"Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state. Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."
EXCERPTS from the article:
". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions. In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights. This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."
"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state."
AUTHOR: Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.
I scrolled down and read it was from a professor. You constantly berate me for regurgitating the views that alleged proffessors ram down my thought. Youve made that allegation numerous times.
Now you dare cite a professor after you use that fact to diminish multiple opinions I expressed.
I will not read it sir.
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
Those that donated to Hussein do not want to operate within the bounds of the free market, so hope Hussein will continue to crash any free market we have left. Also, a good portion of board members and executives got their positions because of their time in government. If you aren't familiar with how corporations collude with government, then you really need to do some research. You want to obfuscate reality by taking the position that Marxists hate money, when they love it more than anyone else. The working for it part they really hate. Marxists always want to be the ones on top. None of them say "I love Marxism. I can't wait until we're standing in bread lines."
Not all of them.
Not all CEOs are Marxist. No, I don't think Romney is a Marxist. It would be very hard to do what he's done in his life and be a Marxist.
McCain is a Marxist, correct.
Correct. Don't forget about foreign money (obama.com, etc)...
No, not all CEOs are Marxists. Jeff Immelt, Eric Schmidt, for example, yes. John Mackey, no. One thing you don't understand, since you don't have experience in business, is that sometimes it is wise to donate to a candidate you don't support, just so you won't be on their shit list if you do get elected. There is strategy that comes into play for political donations, so I would take each one on a case-by-case basis. A small local example of this is when you buy a car sticker that shows you donate to the police department. Whether it works or doesn't work is not relavent, but it's the feeling that it may to put you at some ease.
You are again, on this topic, saying something stupid, like Hussein isn't a Marxist, when he is, and trying to use anti-capitalist behavior by government to justify that he really isn't. You need to understand that you're not smart enough to try and obfuscate and deceive us here.
Link?
Wealthy make political donations. I'm sorry to be the one to break this news to you.
I am starting to think we dont disagree as much as I thought we did.
It seems to me what you call marxism is some sort of idea where a group blocks the free market in order to preserve their pre-existing wealth. IE the banks.
I agree that is what happened. However, I just wouldnt term it Marxist while admittedly, I now undertsnad somewhat why you are calling it that. You are right, and I agree, Marxists love money too. Or more specifically, communsits. I am not sure Marixst thought has ever translated into a government. But a comunist yes Loves money. Stalin didn't live like a peasany.
But I dont think its communism. I think its as simple as there is a huge wealthy elite, like the banks for example, who because they are wealthy, are able to control both parties.
Like Chase bank donated to both sides in both 2008 and 2012. I think they are in effect buying the outcome either way.
Obama has clearly made the wealthier more wealthy. Nobody is debating that I dont think. It seems you think its cause he believes in essentially communist thought of cornering the market for those already in the have. I think its cause wealth buys decision making in democracies.
Take Bush. The second. He also was corrupted by threse interests. Farm subsidies for example. Huge tax subsidies for oil companies. The airline industry is saved essetnailyl by govnerment industries. 100 percent of pharmaceutical drugs come from governemnt research and are then handed to private company. The internet, gps, the microchip all are foudnations of govenremnt research then handed to private companies.
I say that because I beleive your view takes this as a partisan issue. That Obama is unique to this or the dermocrats are unique to it. I think its bi-partisan. WHich is why I came to learn of the Tea Party.
Both parties are funded by major economic power. So I dont see it as a Obama mindset issue. But an acorss the poltical spectrum virus.
The free market will never be free while wealthy companeis can buy poltical decision making. That is bi-partisan.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:06:09 PM
I scrolled down and read it was from a professor. You constantly berate me for regurgitating the views that alleged proffessors ram down my thought. Youve made that allegation numerous times.
Now you dare cite a professor after you use that fact to diminish multiple opinions I expressed.
I will not read it sir.
I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?
How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?
Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/
Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?
How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?
Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/
Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line. :biggrin:
Your kidding me right? Are you seriously kidding me?
If entry of him temporaily in a socialist party is evidencve of him being a socialist, then entry intot he democratic partry is evidence of hime not being one.
Nor is this source remotely reliable...look at the subtext..not credible journalist outfit would print a title like that.
Why are the wealthiest Americans doing better under him? WHy has the wealthy gap inccreased? Point to the communist policy?
Please answer these seriously.
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?
How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?
Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/
Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line. :biggrin:
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was. They are alll marixsts.
In our society wealth buys the outcome. Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact. The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do. You misunderstand our system.
Stastically signifncat research shows this. Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected. Thats oligarchy, not marixsm. Thats how it its. Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.
You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy? You are nuts.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:14:51 PM
I am starting to think we dont disagree as much as I thought we did.
I disagree.
Quote
It seems to me what you call marxism is some sort of idea where a group blocks the free market in order to preserve their pre-existing wealth. IE the banks.
Marxism is pretty defined. As confused and economically illiterate as Marx was, he didn't leave a lot of doubt as to his beliefs. Executing it, that's a different matter. If you read Marx, you would have an understanding of what it is. For example, Marx wanted redistribution of wealth (not his wealth, of course). That is a foundation of Marxism. Hussein also believes that. He believes in the redistribution of wealth. Since he is of a lower intellect, he is suceptible to that idiocy.
QuoteI agree that is what happened. However, I just wouldnt term it Marxist while admittedly, I now undertsnad somewhat why you are calling it that. You are right, and I agree, Marxists love money too. Or more specifically, communsits. I am not sure Marixst thought has ever translated into a government. But a comunist yes Loves money. Stalin didn't live like a peasany.
They need to bring the system down so it can be overthrown. And, yes, Marxism has made it into government. You're talking about the banks, while Marx wanted credit nationalized? Centralization of communications and transportation? A heavy progressive income tax? Equal liability of all labor? Are you being serious right now? No, we're not totally taken over, but we have some de-Marxin' to do.
QuoteBut I dont think its communism. I think its as simple as there is a huge wealthy elite, like the banks for example, who because they are wealthy, are able to control both parties.
Please define the "wealthy elite". That is a propagandist talking point, so in order to disect it, we need to define it. Please define it.
QuoteLike Chase bank donated to both sides in both 2008 and 2012. I think they are in effect buying the outcome either way.
Follow the money. This shell game can't go on forever. A free market economy would force banks, and other government-favored organizations, to compete in the private sector.
QuoteObama has clearly made the wealthier more wealthy. Nobody is debating that I dont think. It seems you think its cause he believes in essentially communist thought of cornering the market for those already in the have. I think its cause wealth buys decision making in democracies.
You have to understand what that means. Just because wealthier got wealthier, doesn't mean he is pro-Capitalist, or not a Marxist. For example, look at the incomes of Congressmen and Senators who had great increases in personal wealth while in office. That's not the free market at work. That is a Marxist society, where there are a small few on top, and the rest of us are standing in bread lines.
QuoteTake Bush. The second. He also was corrupted by threse interests. Farm subsidies for example. Huge tax subsidies for oil companies. The airline industry is saved essetnailyl by govnerment industries. 100 percent of pharmaceutical drugs come from governemnt research and are then handed to private company. The internet, gps, the microchip all are foudnations of govenremnt research then handed to private companies.
Bush was responsible for a lot of bad stuff. Nobody disputes that.
QuoteI say that because I beleive your view takes this as a partisan issue.
You believe wrong. I want John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, etc., in prison, right next to Hussein. Open your mind.
QuoteThat Obama is unique to this or the dermocrats are unique to it. I think its bi-partisan.
He's not. This movement has been happening before Hussein was even born.
QuoteWHich is why I came to learn of the Tea Party.
Both parties are funded by major economic power. So I dont see it as a Obama mindset issue. But an acorss the poltical spectrum virus.
We agree.
QuoteThe free market will never be free while wealthy companeis can buy poltical decision making. That is bi-partisan.
Don't focus on wealthy itself. Focus on _how_ and _who_ are becoming wealthy. If government wasn't allowed to collude with the "private" sector, many of those "wealthy elitests" would have to operate within the bounds of the natural free market, like the rest of us.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was. They are alll marixsts.
In our society wealth buys the outcome. Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact. The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do. You misunderstand our system.
Stastically signifncat research shows this. Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected. Thats oligarchy, not marixsm. Thats how it its. Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.
You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy? You are nuts.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://peoplesworld.org/a-radical-third-party-i-agree/
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was. They are alll marixsts.
In our society wealth buys the outcome. Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact. The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do. You misunderstand our system.
Stastically signifncat research shows this. Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected. Thats oligarchy, not marixsm. Thats how it its. Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.
You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy? You are nuts.
Let a Fabian explain why money in the hands of the few, creates an atmosphere for revolution, then maybe you'll understand what Hussein is doing.
Four men, viz.: Gould, Astor, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, practically control, and, what is more important, are rapidly absorbing the wealth of this 50,000. The day is not so very far distant, and a sociologist can predict almost its exact appearance, just as an astronomer calculates the date of an eclipse of the sun, when, if no structural change in society takes place, these four men will be the sole owners of the United States. I think that, if such a state of affairs should come about, no one would differ with me when I say that it would force a reconstruction of society. In other words, the sixty odd millions of people in the United States may now rest undisturbed, and allow a plutocracy of 50,000 to own their country; but when it shall come to having only four own it, patience will cease to be a virtue.
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was. They are alll marixsts.
In our society wealth buys the outcome. Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact. The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do. You misunderstand our system.
Stastically signifncat research shows this. Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected. Thats oligarchy, not marixsm. Thats how it its. Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.
You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy? You are nuts.
For a day? Hell, he wanted their endorsement. Don't like the link, look it up for yourself, "Obama Joins The New Party".
Then there's that little issue of CPA endorsing him, you know, the Communist party America, yeah, that commie party loves him.
But here's one you simply can't discount. A man that belonged to the same ggroup Hussein did in college.
Take your pick, or just watch Drew's video.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=1067
Speaking of communism.....
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/dems-new-agenda-hauntingly-similar-to-communism/
I think they are out of the closet...........
While at Columbia, although no one remembers Obama being there, a guy named Wayne Root who was there when Obama supposedly was, says they were all Marxists and wanted to destroy capitalism. He also said that the day that Reagan was shot, everyone in the class applauded and high-fived each other.
Quote from: Dori on May 17, 2015, 05:24:33 PM
While at Columbia, although no one remembers Obama being there, a guy named Wayne Root who was there when Obama supposedly was, says they were all Marxists and wanted to destroy capitalism. He also said that the day that Reagan was shot, everyone in the class applauded and high-fived each other.
Taxed fired off an email to Drew, so if he gets a chance to show up, our liberal little friend is in for a rude awakening on Hussein's commie connections.
Check out some of Dr. Drew's older posts from here on the forum.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=1067
Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 06:58:53 PM
Taxed fired off an email to Drew, so if he gets a chance to show up, our liberal little friend is in for a rude awakening on Hussein's commie connections.
Check out some of Dr. Drew's older posts from here on the forum.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=1067
One of the best points Dr. Drew makes is about Hussein's conversion. When was it? What was it? If any of us decided we didn't believe in conservatism anymore, or the free market is a bad idea, or whatever, there would be a journey. There would be an incident or event, or some aha moment, or whatever, where we decide our entire thought process is wrong, and the political and ideological conversion. For us conservatives, however, that would be more of an incident that involves brain damage of some sort, while a conversion from Marxist to conservative would involve an intellectual enlightenment. Dr. Drew talks about his story here:
http://anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/2011/09/dr-drews-true-confessions-conversion.html
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 07:18:20 PM
One of the best points Dr. Drew makes is about Hussein's conversion. When was it? What was it? If any of us decided we didn't believe in conservatism anymore, or the free market is a bad idea, or whatever, there would be a journey. There would be an incident or event, or some aha moment, or whatever, where we decide our entire thought process is wrong, and the political and ideological conversion. For us conservatives, however, that would be more of an incident that involves brain damage of some sort, while a conversion from Marxist to conservative would involve an intellectual enlightenment. Dr. Drew talks about his story here:
http://anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com/2011/09/dr-drews-true-confessions-conversion.html
I loved that. He nailed it perfectly. He also alluded to the fact that Hussein was raised a communist, in the fact that he didn't simply become one on his own.
Quote from: kroz on May 17, 2015, 05:18:15 PM
Speaking of communism.....
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/dems-new-agenda-hauntingly-similar-to-communism/
I think they are out of the closet...........
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
They're not even hiding it anymore.
Quote from: quiller on May 15, 2015, 11:32:37 AM
I repeat --- spellcheck is your friend. And no, you are obviously incapable of saying nice things about America. All you snivel about are its alleged crimes.
:lol: :lol: :lol: Dam Quiller, you scared the b'Jesus outta' him so badly that he mis-spelled almost every word in his response. All I've read from this character amounts to no more than an indictment of the US. Obola should recruit him to join his anti-America agenda. :wink:
Is there going to be a beat down?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 17, 2015, 10:08:41 PM
Is there going to be a beat down?
He's kicking our ass. So far, we learned that the US is very bad with human rights because someone can get ill if they eat depleted uranium, and Obama really isn't a Marxist, because he let CEOs on Wall Street keep their bonuses after the bailouts.
I'm not sure how to combat those.
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 10:12:09 PM
He's kicking our ass. So far, we learned that the US is very bad with human rights because someone can get ill if they eat depleted uranium, and Obama really isn't a Marxist, because he let CEOs on Wall Street keep their bonuses after the bailouts.
I'm not sure how to combat those.
Did you try and stop laughing. :lol:
Quote from: walkstall on May 17, 2015, 10:20:44 PM
Did you try and stop laughing. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I tried, but couldn't....
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 10:12:09 PM
He's kicking our ass. So far, we learned that the US is very bad with human rights because someone can get ill if they eat depleted uranium, and Obama really isn't a Marxist, because he let CEOs on Wall Street keep their bonuses after the bailouts.
I'm not sure how to combat those.
Marxist, Socialist, whatever. Obama is a big government statist that has only been hampered by the constitution, the courts and the congress.
Uranium is rather tasty with potatoes, carrots, a glass of Cabernet....
Quote from: The Boo Man... on May 17, 2015, 10:26:08 PM
Marxist, Socialist, whatever. Obama is a big government statist that has only been hampered by the constitution, the courts and the congress.
Uranium is rather tasty with potatoes, carrots, a glass of Cabernet....
Plus it makes your pee look funny.
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 10:28:34 PM
Plus it makes your pee look funny.
You just had to tell didn't you. :lol:
Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 10:23:27 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I tried, but couldn't....
Dang taxed, can't you laugh while you "chew"? Too funny! :lol: :lol:
This boy's a real howl. Either argue according to his rules (I win, everyone else particularly America) loses.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.fotki.com%2F1_p%2Csgbqrbfwgkdgbbbxbqfqsbrwqdbw%2Cvi%2Fgrgwswsssxgwswrtqfw%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fiwinbecauseisayso295x331-vi.png&hash=05077369e42aae54c35935511df7578bb3a8fce6)
Absolutely, in fact it's that same 200 year old document, which allows you to spout off your nonsense. Instead of just locking you up and throwing away the key. In fact there we a time, in which espousing the views you have here, would have gotten you burned at the stake, if not drawn and quartered for treason against the crown. Guess it's lucky for you we have that 200 year old document, which enshrines, protects, and ensures your right to free speech isn't it now.
Quote from: daidalos on May 19, 2015, 07:38:18 PM
Absolutely, in fact it's that same 200 year old document, which allows you to spout off your nonsense. Instead of just locking you up and throwing away the key. In fact there we a time, in which espousing the views you have here, would have gotten you burned at the stake, if not drawn and quartered for treason against the crown. Guess it's lucky for you we have that 200 year old document, which enshrines, protects, and ensures your right to free speech isn't it now.
He does not have a problem with it protecting him, he has a problem with it protecting you. Kinda if like political constructiveness, it limits your speech, not the libs.
Quote from: kroz on May 13, 2015, 08:35:53 AM
He wants the UN to do his bidding..... taking care of things he has been unable to do.
To an extent it is an admission of his own failures! The anointed one has been less than "anointed".
The ends, justify the means, Komrade!
Obama's tactics are simililar to those he used to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American Peasantry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaMI69T-rSY
Quote from: wally on May 20, 2015, 04:17:57 AM
The ends, justify the means, Komrade!
Obama's tactics are simililar to those he used to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American Peasantry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaMI69T-rSY
That was pretty cool, wally!!! ...... and very convincing! :thumbup:
Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 08:36:52 AM
...Just the mere fact that you are equating communism with marx in the manner you are is idiotic to say the least...
You are an uneducated bigot.
I love it when pinko's explain away their faults by attributing everything that does not work with socialism
(which is everything) to other brands of socialism such as national socialism, Marxism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, fascism etc until the only thing they have left are inane slogans such as equality :laugh:
Socialism still works in theory, if you disregard 100+ years of detailed facts and history of socialism because you see that was not true socialism :tounge:
Quote from: Mountainshield on May 28, 2015, 08:52:09 AM
I love it when pinko's explain away their faults by attributing everything that does not work with socialism to other brands of socialism such as national socialism, Marxism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, fascism etc until the only thing they have left are inane slogans such as equality :laugh:
Socialism still works in theory, if you disregard 100+ years of detailed facts and history of socialism because you see that was not true socialism :tounge:
Yep, like these leftists always like to claim, that communism works, except for the fact that everywhere it's been tried failed because those implementing it were dictators.
Yeah, and sociopaths are merely misunderstood. :lol:
Quote from: Solar on May 28, 2015, 08:56:03 AM
Yep, like these leftists always like to claim, that communism works, except for the fact that everywhere it's been tried failed because those implementing it were dictators.
Yeah, and sociopaths are merely misunderstood. :lol:
And remember, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were not socialist, and neither were National Socialist Germany, they were all just uneducated bigots that equated socialism with something else you see :rolleyes:
As for sociopaths it ties in with their belief in that there no such thing as good or evil, just oppressor and victim. A criminal/sociopath is a victim of capitalist unequal distribution of material goods or services, and the Baath Party is just a victim of Imperialist capitalist greed for oil. Guess I could have made the case even simpler, we can use these weapons because we are the side of good, end of story.
Quote from: Mountainshield on May 28, 2015, 09:14:53 AM
And remember, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were not socialist, and neither were National Socialist Germany, they were all just uneducated bigots that equated socialism with something else you see :rolleyes:
As for sociopaths it ties in with their belief in that there no such thing as good or evil, just oppressor and victim. A criminal/sociopath is a victim of capitalist unequal distribution of material goods or services, and the Baath Party is just a victim of Imperialist capitalist greed for oil. Guess I could have made the case even simpler, we can use these weapons because we are the side of good, end of story.
:lol:
Excellent points.
Translation: Leftist Moral Relativism.